The Simple Truth: Republicans Hate Our Constitution

paulmcconnellI’m so tired of hearing this absurd claim by Republicans that they are the “party for Constitutional values.”

I wrote an article a couple weeks ago about how Republicans love a Constitution, just not ours.  But even when I spelled it out simply for them, they still didn’t get it.  They don’t understand that simply wanting something to be true doesn’t mean that it is.

Republicans, listen and listen good—you are not the party of Constitutional values.  Not even close.  Just because you put a “God Bless America” bumper sticker on your vehicle and fly an American flag at your home doesn’t make you a patriot, and it damn sure doesn’t make you an advocate for our Constitution.

In fact, almost daily I read about some right-wing agenda that seeks to violate our Constitution.  It’s pretty amazing how many Republican politicians, and their voters, support the stance to ignore and dismiss federal laws if they disagree with them.

Abortion?  Well, we disagree with it, so we can try to violate the Constitutionally protected right a woman has over her own body.

The Affordable Care Act?  Well, we disagree with it, so it’s okay to try and ignore that Constitutionally upheld law.

Religion in public school?  Well, we think our country was founded on Christianity (even though the word Christianity doesn’t appear even once in our Constitution), so it’s okay to ignore the First Amendment and force religion (as long as it’s the Christian religion) into our public schools.

Freedom for all?  Well, not if you’re homosexual.  Then we’ll continue to violate the First Amendment by supporting laws that define marriage as between a man and a woman.  A belief that’s based on the Christian Bible—a belief of which millions of Christians don’t even support.

Conservatives don’t like that minorities often don’t vote for their party, so it’s acceptable to try and change our Fourteenth Amendment and the Constitutional definition of what constitutes an American citizen.

Certain demographics don’t vote for us, so let’s find ways to make it harder for them to vote. Similar to poll taxes or tests once used to discourage certain voters from voting.

When they call themselves the “party of Constitutional values,” they simply have got to be joking.

The only amendment they really defend without question is our Second Amendment—and even then they ignore the entire first half of it and just focus on the last part.

Republicans are for their interpretation of what they want the Constitution to be, not what it actually is.  Conservatives have no problem ignoring our Constitution, or violating American rights, on issues of which they disagree.

It’s just laughable that the party which openly tries to defy Constitutionally protected rights whenever they disagree with them, flies this false banner of the party for “Constitutional values.”

The worst part is, deep down they really think “Constitutional values” means a nation ruled by theocracy (a theocracy built on their perversion of Christianity), denying women’s rights, opposing gay rights, changing the definition of what it is to be an American citizen and a country where gun rights are more important than human rights.  Sadly, they’re just becoming more and more extreme on these issues, and that’s a slap to the face of our Constitution and our country as a whole.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • Jim Austin

    I haven’t the words to express my disgust for “those people” that want to squash the RIGHTS of other American citizens because they don’t like/agree with the CONservatives…

    • John Gavel

      Funny you say that Jim, i feel the same way but im considered “conservative.” Cant go a day without hearing how bad i am bc of some clowns in washington “representing” us.

    • You forgot to mention the left and their attack on gun owners an how they portrait them as morally deficient humans with no compassion because they own big scary guns and the liberal left doesnt like or approve of that.

      • Nope, they just want background checks and training for idiots who can’t understand basic safety rules – like NOT having a loaded weapon lying around where your 2-year old can pick it up and kill themselves or a sibling with it.

      • Like the parents who bought guns for their children and taught them gun safety and someone died later on from those guns. Yep buy more guns that’s the American way

      • Charles Vincent

        Those parents were completely irresponsible and it’s a tragedy that it happened, but don’t stereotype all gun owners because a few do stupid things.

      • Charles Vincent

        You’re trying to legislate people into not being stupid can you not grasp the absurdity of what you’re proposing?

      • Stan

        “You’re trying to legislate people into not being stupid can you not grasp the absurdity of what you’re proposing?”
        NO, I doubt that they can. I mean, everyone follows ALL laws… right?

        Except for the Registered Democrats in the US that keep committing mass murders.. like in Connecticut and Colorado…… etc..

      • Charles Vincent

        Not exactly sure were your coming from. Please clarify your point.

      • Richard Cook

        You are an idiot. I am sick of people like you who always resort to lies and belligerence instead of trying to have a rational discussion.

      • sonoitabear

        “You’re trying to legislate people into not being stupi”

        Yes, we HAVE tried that, but the Rethuglicans are still here…

      • Charles Vincent

        That’s a naive argument because it assumes that democrats aren’t stupid which is demonstrably incorrect. Stupid doesn’t discriminate based on party affiliation, or any other metric for that matter. Stupid is equal opportunity.

      • disqus_6AeSbMRBY2

        How about the insane idea that a 15 year old girl shouldn’t have access to birth control, but hey, let’s give a 5 year old kid a gun for Christmas? Perfectly fine……

      • Richard Cook

        They are extremely paranoid and think everything is an attempt to take their guns away. 35 years ago there was a man who took his 8 year old grandson on a hunting trip. He left his rifle lying around loaded. The child thought it was a toy, picked it up, and shot his grandfather dead. When it was noted that he should have had a childproof lock on it, his widow said that was unconstitutional and he gave his life protecting the 2nd Amendment.
        20 years ago a girl wrote a letter to the editor stating the importance of gun safety, including the need for childproof locks. An outraged conservative wrote a letter stating that the girl was violating his rights, and said “well, I guess her word processor didn’t have a childproof lock on it”.
        These people think background checks are a violation of privacy, even though they say there is no right to privacy. They are pro-life, but they do not want childproof locks or even safety training. Their solution is for everyone to have a gun and they will certainly try to force that on us.

      • Norman Clark

        i’m a democrat with 8 years of military and 50+ years of hunting and handling weapons of all kinds. I believe in background checks and I’m pretty sure 2nd amendment doesn’t give civilians the right to own machine guns with 100 round magazines. You don’t need them for hunting and if you need that many shots to hit an intruder , you are much better off with a shotgun. And yes I still own firearm

      • Aloanstar

        I completely agree. There is no reason a person should be able to shoot off 100 rounds without reloading. If it’s for hunting, you need to learn how to aim better.

      • Charles Vincent

        Different firearms have different applications just like any other tool you want to select the right tool for the task at hand. Spin that 100 rounds with out reloading to those who had to protect their business’s from looters during the LA riots.

      • dancerboots

        If that is true..I wonder how many innocent people they killed while “spraying and praying”

      • Charles Vincent

        Are you really that daft?

      • Richard Cook

        You can stop claiming to be pro-life now.

      • Charles Vincent

        I never claimed to be pro life moron.

      • Charles Vincent

        As a military person you of all people should know the difference between semi auto rifles and fully auto rifles. The second amendment isn’t about hunting. And the high capacity magazines they are banning are in fact 30 round standard capacity that come standard with an ar. You can still own a fully auto but you need to jump through a few hoops to get a class 3 license and pay a 200 dollar fee to get the tax stamp and then another. 10-15 thousand on the actual fire arm. It’s disappointing that you don’t know that.

      • Richard Cook

        It is disappointing that you have your head up your ass.

      • Charles Vincent

        Whats really disappointing is you trolling posts from 2 years ago.

      • Richard Cook

        Conservatives claim the 2nd Amendment gives everyone the right to have their own jet fighter aircraft. I have seen letters to the editor stating that.

      • Charles Vincent

        nice hasty generalization. Ahh yes the you’ve seen them argument… where are they then????

      • Aloanstar

        No one has said you shouldn’t own guns and if you do, you are “morally deficient human with no compassion”. That is Fox talk. Plenty of people on the left have guns and they don’t think they are scary. What IS scary, is when people that own them don’t want their background checked or have a national registry for the ownership of them. If you have nothing to worry about, what is the big deal?

      • Charles Vincent

        News flash a national gun registry is the only way universal background check will work and the said gun registry is prohibited by federal law since 1986

      • dancerboots

        Again you are misinformed..though having a registry certainly would have helped in Phoenix as border patrol agents attempted to stem the flow of guns into Mexico…at least legislation that limited the number of semi-automatics allowed to be sold in one transaction..would have inconvenienced straw purchaser that walked in a gun dealers shop with $20,000 and walked out with twenty guns. Since there is no law against it…the border patrol would have to catch the straw purchaser’s transaction of the transfer of guns to the Cartel in the act.

        Your assertion that a national registry is the only way a universal background check would work doesn’t even make sense..the registry is for guns already purchased. What it could do is speed up the process once a person has been shown to have a gun registered…he could be free from the background check for a certain amount of years…perhaps five…if legislation were passed. Why the unwarranted fear that if a gun is registered some big bad government agent is going to come and take them from you? The logistics just do not add up. There are as many guns owned in the U.S. as there are citizens…I mean the gun fights that would ensue..if a president declares himself a dictator (another far out fallacy) and every law official/military person went along…No one would be left standing…except those that don’t own guns.

      • Charles Vincent

        “…an internal Justice Department (the same Justice Department ran by Eric ‘Fast and Furious’ Holder), it is revealed that the Obama administrations own research shows that an assault weapons ban would only be effective with mandatory gun confiscation and that universal background checks would only be effective with federal gun registration.”
        What was it you were saying about my assertion on firearms registries again.
        The guns going to Mexico were fully automatic weapons and were allowed to walk over by the DOJ, please read about fast and furious.

      • Howster234

        Charles, just to help you out with your memory, Fast and Furious was started under the Bush Administration. When Holder got wind of this he shut the program down. Now as much as Congressman Issa wanted to, he did not find any wrongdoing by Holder. Plus stop with the scare tactics about needing a gun registry. If you read the Mancin/Toomey bill, there is a 15 year prison sentence to anyone trying to start a registry. Now if you have any clue about where these two Senators are from, then you would know they would not survive another election if they were looking to mess with people’s guns.

      • Charles Vincent

        The original conversation was about the original UBC bill not the manchin/Toomey bill which was also voted down. My post to dancer is a reflection of the original conversation.

        “Charles, just to help you out with your memory, Fast and Furious was started under the Bush Administration.”
        A stupid idea is a stupid idea regardless of when it started. If memory serves the bush administration shut it down, and the Obama administration via holder started it back up.

        Gun control is a dumb idea it’s in the same category as prohibition which was a colossal failure.

      • Richard Cook

        Your memory does not serve you as it is obviously very selective. You remember only what you think will further your agenda.

      • Charles Vincent

        FYI this site doesn’t allow links to post. Also stop getting you information from blog sites that have no ties to reputable media.
        Here is some per tenant information from abc news.
        “Another weapon from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agency’s controversial Operation Fast and Furious was recently recovered at a Mexican crime scene, CBS News has learned. Congressional investigators say the crime scene was likely where a recent shootout took place between reported Sinaloa drug cartel members and the Mexican military, in which Sinaloa beauty queen Maria Susana Flores Gamez and four others were killed.

        According to Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, the Justice Department did not notify Congress of the Fast and Furious firearm recovery in November, even though Grassley has requested an accounting of weapons that surface from the case. During Fast and Furious, ATF allowed more than 2,000 weapons, including giant .50-caliber guns, to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels and other criminals. Other so-called “gunwalking” operations by ATF let hundreds more guns hit the street. Most of them have never been recovered.

        Brian Terry family sues ATF officials in Fast and Furious
        Mexican beauty queen killed in shootout
        The latest known recovery is a Romanian AK-47-type WASR-10 rifle. It was picked up at a crime scene Nov. 23 in Ciudad Guamuchil, Sinaloa, Mexico. That’s the same area and weekend of the shootout involving Flores Gamez’s death. A trace report shows the rifle was purchased by Uriel Patino, the Fast and Furious suspect who allegedly bought more than 700 weapons while under ATF’s watch. Records show Patino bought the rifle and nine other semi-automatic rifles at an Arizona gun shop March 16, 2010.”

      • sonoitabear

        “FYI this site doesn’t allow links to post.”

        Liar.. I just posted one…

      • Charles Vincent

        My post on this thread is two years old they changed their policy recently to allow links in comments.

      • Richard Cook

        You opposed the Brady Bill, and you should explain how people are getting guns who should not have them. Obviously they did not go through background checks because people like you are against that.

      • Charles Vincent

        You’re conflating the Brady bill with UBC’s chief. Obama’s DOJ memo states clearly that a UBC requires a registry, which is illegal under federal law. (see Firearms owners protection act)=

      • Charles Vincent

        once again guns used in crime are acquired by theft or buying them from someone that stole them.

      • sonoitabear

        ” it’s been the law since 1993 it’s called the Brady bill.”

        FYI, the Brady Bill has expired… rethuglican NRA stooges refused to renew it…

      • Charles Vincent

        No the Brady bill is still in force that’s why ffl dealers are required to run background checks on every gun sale.

      • Charles Vincent

        Background checks continue
        The expiration of the assault weapons ban does not mean the end of federal background checks. The 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act is separate legislation from the assault weapons ban, said Daniel Wells, chief of the FBI unit charged with overseeing the background checks system.
        “The change in law relating to assault weapons has no impact on the Brady Law,” Wells said.

      • Jane Doe Democrat Gun Owner

        I’m so sick of you ignorant gun morons. NOBODY of any consequence has even threatened to take away your guns!!!! Or mine either you fool. Yes, I own guns, you idiot, as do millions of non-conservatives. We want common sense, which is an oxymoron to the NRA regime. The legislation your pissants (including some dems, too) voted down did not have ONE WORD about taking away anybody’s guns! Oppose it if you want, but STOP THE LIES about ANYBODY taking your – or my – guns away!.

        On a passing note, should that never-gonna-happen scenario of this big bad government, led by President Blackenstein, going in to take away your guns, happens, all the weapons you collective idiots could possibly amass would be blasted to dust in one drone strike. You seriously think you could take on the U.S military industrial complex? That belief puts you into the seriously deranged category.

        Just stop the ‘taking away my guns’ lies – please!

      • Charles Vincent

        The Feinstein ban is taking firearms away based solely on cosmetics your argument fails. And there have been background check on firearm sales since 1993 when they passed the Brady bill.

  • hegesias

    NDAA, NSA, prosecuting whistleblowers, expanding the Patriot Act, drone assassinations of American citizens…

    Try not to be partisan hacks.

    • ^ what he said and stop trying to rewrite the bill of rights as well.

    • ContessaSharra

      you all INVENTED the Patriot Act. You should be careful what you ask for, it can come back and bite you in the butt…..

      • John Gavel

        Oh so that makes it right that now the FBI and IRS has free reign over all your personal emails and messages- rightttcontessa. Saying is two wrongs make a right, right?

      • proud2beDem

        A little paranoia ! Where do you get these outrages thoughts from ?

      • Bine646

        Alittle paranoia? Its not paranoia when its the truth- do alittle research and see the loopholes they established to beable to look thru your emails- one loophole is if the message is unopened for 6 months- its free game. As for the irs, they are not bound by the same rules and have disclosed this practice- so go ahead and learn something before you post a reply- kinda look uneducated

      • Bine646

        Newly disclosed documents prepared by IRS lawyers say that Americans enjoy “generally no privacy” in their e-mail, Facebook chats, Twitter direct messages, and similar online communications — meaning that they can be perused without obtaining a search warrant signed by a judge.

        That places the IRS at odds with a growing sentiment among many judges and legislators who believe that Americans’ e-mail messages should be protected from warrantless search and seizure. They say e-mail should be protected by the same Fourth Amendment privacy standards that require search warrants for hard drives in someone’s home, or a physical letter in a filing cabinet.

        An IRS 2009 Search Warrant Handbook obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union argues that “emails and other transmissions generally lose their reasonable expectation of privacy and thus their Fourth Amendment protection once they have been sent from an individual’s computer.” The handbook was prepared by the Office of Chief Counsel for the Criminal Tax Division and obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. What were you saying about being paranoid?

    • dancerboots

      The NDAA does not contain the words “indefinite detention” anywhere. This was your typical msm hype to drum up business. Nor can a U.S. citizen be detained by the military on U.S. soil. In fact, there is an amendment introduced and passed that specifically states that a U.S. citizen cannot be detained by the military. He/she can be arrested and subject to civil/criminal laws. The so called “indefinite detention” is under military law..that an enemy combatant caught in the act of hostility (battle) can be detained in a POW camp, without trial and released when the war is declared over. It is true Congress needs to address military law because terrorism is not like conventional wars and the war can be indefinite. The one exception to a U.S. citizen being detained under military law is when he defects to another country and joins Al Qaeda. He has conducted an act of treason and may not have protection of the Constitution and the writ of habeas corpus. He is no longer a U.S. citizen, he is our enemy. Even so, detainees in Gitmo could have legal representation and a review of their charges with a military tribunal. There were some detainees that obtained a writ of habeas corpus and had trials in the Wash.D.C District Courts.
      President Obama in his National Security speech on May of this year, ask Congress to repeal the AUMF (the Authorization For The Use of Military Force that gave unprecedented powers to the presidency against terrorist..including the use of drones), to declare the war on terrorism over and to fund the closure of Gitmo and fund the transfers of the detainees. Where was the hype? Heck, where was much of any reporting of this speech..or any action by Congress afterwards?
      Whistle blowers, if they have signed a contract upon obtaining classified security status, and break that contract releasing sensitive national security information, then yes, they are subject to prosecutions. No President has had as much propaganda, conspiracy theories and “so called” scandals drummed up…hoping one would stick and all for political gain…President Clinton.comes close..and some of that he brought on you see the connection…the Republicans play dirty and take no prisoners.
      It was Congress that passes the legislation and a President can’t cherry pick parts of the law he doesn’t agree with (the Supreme Court ruled a President is not allowed a line item veto…some governors are).

  • Mark Strange

    Actually liberal Christians are the perversion of Christianity, but that’s a good thing. The Idea of perversion is corrupting from the original, the original was pretty bad. Other then that I agree!

    • Other THAN that, moron. The “original” – meaning what Christ taught (not what the [first] council of Nicea agreed upon). How is helping the meek and poor not Christian? How is following the atheistic principles of Ayn Rand NOT a perversion of what Jesus said?

      • dissenter

        I’m not sure we know what R. Yeshua taught. Chances are that little of it found its way into the modern-day Bible.

  • charriff

    Don’t forget that this country was formed by people who left other countries because they wanted a country that the ruling party did not control their religion and how they practiced their religion.

    • John Gavel

      Thats what chickfila owners were saying

      • No, what Chick-Fila wants is to enforce THEIR religious beliefs on all their employees. No one is stopping them from worshiping any way they like, but they can’t force it upon others.

      • John Gavel

        I highly doubt that because every chickfila i have been too, whether in the middle of the country or in the middle of the city has had employees which are more worried about my order and serving my food then instilling their “religious” beliefs on me.

        Do you work their Gabby? Do you know anyone that does? How can you be so certain they they enforce their religious beliefs on their employees?

      • surgethis

        You are not informed on this issue. Nice to see you took the time to type a response but either you are being silly or you don’t get it. Chickfila supports a right wing anti-freedom agenda financially by using their money and influence to harm gays … it’s not about people who work there.

      • John Gavel

        Ohhhhh I see. Because the owners of these private franchises (not publicly owned so we really do not have a say what they do with their money, like they cant tell you who to donate yours too) donate money to religious organizations such as Catholic athletic association, family research council or exodus international they are harming gays? Because their religion speaks against the practice? Interesting bc im pretty sure every religion- whether Islam to Judaism has a stance on homosexuality. That being said, Chickfila has stopped donating to exodus and frc, however they still have their winshape foundation- so i guess you can go bash that for awhile. As for me Ill go there for not only the amazing chicken but also the impeccable service. Something about being greeted at the door, having your drink refilled and your tray taken care of at a fast food restaurant by the adorable older woman just does it for me, i dont know tho i could not be “informed” on the issue

        After your stop at winshape, hit up the local churches or synagogue with your signs telling those individuals that donating to their particular place of worship is somehow “hurting” gays.

      • Tony

        The company was donating money to groups directly tied to Kill the Gays legislation in Uganda. This isn’t just a difference of opinion on how great gay people are.

        It stopped being just someone voicing their opinion. And if this guy and his company have the right to do as they please in this regard, others damn well have the right to protest it. So I’m not even sure where you’re trying to go.

      • John Gavel

        Im trying to go to chickfila to get some more chickennnnnnn- its amazing. As for uganda they got more problems then chickfila haha

      • Deaf258

        Yup. You’re just a chickennnnnnn-eating troll.

      • Bine646

        Its just such good chicken queerbate- cant get enough

      • No one ever suggested that YOU not eat there. You are free to eat there. You are free to donate money to their enterprises. But you don’t have the right to bully others who don’t want to spend money there. I used to love those waffle fries & their chicken. I have not entered a chick-fil-a since the big guy made his statement. Because I can choose where my money is spent – just like yourself.
        But if you have gay friends (I suspect you don’t) it is like telling them well, you are my friend, but I don’t support you or your lifestyle enough to give up my waffle fries….

      • Bine646

        Got acouple gay friends n family members- chickfila has been donating to religious organizations like this for yrs- you stopped in 2007? 2008? Or did you stop in 2012 like the rest of the puppets?

      • Aleister

        Christianity, Islam, and Judaism all do have that stance on gays, but “all religions”, no, and when you want to say all religions, don’t say “From Christianity, to Judaism, to Islam”, say “Abrahamic religions”. Not every religion concerned itself with the sexual preferences of the followers/

      • TKnTexas

        It is not the individual stores that are of concern to the LGBT community. At the store level all money is green and they do not ask questions of orientation at the door. They will serve all equally.

        The CFA issue is at the corporate level, the donations (in the millions$$) they make to the anti-gay hate groups. Patronage of any customer, including the LGBT dollars means support of hate groups.

      • Bine646

        Every religious organization hates homosexuality- this isnt anything new? Go to a muslim organization w your gay pride shirt n see how that goes over. Chickfila is a private franchise, if you can donate to pro-gay groups n be ok w it then you should be ok w others being able to donate to their respective organizationa- only fair right? We are free right? But doesnt matter, after record profits last yr chickfila has stopped donating to e international, etc so the arguement is over

      • Larry Dillon

        Exodus Is DEAD. They cried and said we are WRONG. Like bloated OLD bitch Cathy and BREEDER bitch you. Did you see the Court ruling pumpkin. Whats a fucked up breeder bitch to do? Eat chicken or choke it..LOL Breeder Bitches LOST..lmao

      • Bine646

        hahaha youre so maddd and their chicken is soooooo good. You see Cathys tweet? Who cried what? Exactly, move along nugget- making millions over here. CHICK-FIL-A

      • It has little or nothing to do with employees Bine646. It has everything to do with the individual owners of the Franchises & the main guy. They don’t try to enforce their religious beliefs on their customers but on their employees.
        No one said that a majority of the employees are happy to work there; BUT still, it has to be hard on them – plus their hiring practices aren’t favorable to homosexuals. That is discrimination, plain & simple.

        It is just like the owner of Hobby Lobby who refuses to let his company insurance cover birth control because HE believes it is against his religious beliefs. If some Jehovah’s Witness refused to let their insurance cover blood transfusions because they don’t believe in it would you think it was wrong? Well, refusing to pay for birth control & forcing a religion down employees throats is wrong also.

      • Bine646

        So what chickfila did you apply to that you experienced these unfair hiring practices (national chain discriminating seems far fetched w the liberal media today)? How long did you work there before you quit bc they were forcing their religion on you?

    • John_Twiss

      Between 1649 and 1660 Britain was ruled by the Puritans in a republican form called the Commonwealth, oppressing and even putting to death those who disagreed with them. The restoration of the monarchy in 1660 saw Charles II ascend the throne and religious freedom enacted legally. It is true that their was discrimination by individuals against the Puritans, largely in reaction to the oppression that the people had had to bear for 11 years. The Puritans who left for America did so on Royal grants, and not to promote religious freedom but to enforce their own code on their society.

  • Republicans AND Democrats HATE the Constitution together! End the Duopoly! Vote Libertarian!

    • John Gavel

      Gary johnsonnn

    • Michael Siever

      Vote Marijuana!

    • Tony

      I’d never vote for a Libertarian. Even ignoring all of its disconnects, it assumes some sort of ideal starting point where we’re all equal and go from there. If you think that’s happening in this country, you’re deluding yourself. It’d just be more of the same separation of the haves and have-nots. I get enough of that from Republicans.

  • dissenter

    I always roll my eyes when I see a Poli Sci major expresses his opinion on the Constitution; it is a lot like getting my takes on how to handicap horse races. AC is consistently clueless.

    Let’s start with same-sex marriage. In a secular Republic, marriage is a mere contract; the right to contract is an unenumerated right reserved to the people under the 10Am. In the Framers’ Constitution, marriage was regulated by the individual states; the Civil War Amendments imposed additional limitations on their freedom of action. As marriage is recognized as a fundamental right, Loving v. Virginia, the State must show a compelling state interest in order to prohibit two people from entering into the marriage contract. They could ban incestuous marriages, as their mentally feeble issue had the tendency to become wards of the State. They could keep a Mohammed and A’isha from marrying, as the common law always required that the contracting parties be sufficiently mature to give consent. But as Justice Scalia lamented in his Lawrence dissent, once it was recognized that couples could engage in consensual sodomy (agnus Dei!!!), there was no legal impediment to same-sex marriage. And the case law that I have seen to this point bears this out: No State has been able to justify their statutory requirement that the couple be of opposite sexes.

    This one is over, folks. Give it two or three years.

    As for changing the constitutional definition of a citizen, there is legitimate question as to whether the 14Am grants jus soli citizenship (where you are a citizen simply because you were born here). The Supreme Court seemed to decide this in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), but it is not yet clear whether the children of illegal immigrants would enjoy the same status. The difference, of course, is that Wong’s parents were here legally, and you can make a pretty strong argument that the Republicans are right.

    Remember the “Obama is not a natural-born citizen” nonsense? Idiocy, on steroids. Problem is, John McCain was not a natural-born citizen, but the remedy would have been “President Sarah Palin.” No one in his right mind would have ever challenged him.

    Abortion falls under the principle that the way you secure a right is to assert it. Roe v. Wade was an irrational decision from a legal perspective; the far sounder theory was the one adopted in Griswold v. Connecticut: Rights not ceded to the government were retained by the people, and the government must show an interest sufficient to restrict or take away that right in order to do so. This is what Professor Randy Barnett calls the “presumption of liberty.”

    Prayer in school is more complicated and more political. Under the pre-Civil War Constitution, the States could and did have official religions and impose prayer regimens. Now, not so much. Mostly, this is a problem of ignorance on the Right’s part–an ignorance often shared on the Left.

    The core problem was summarized by Justice Hugo Black: “The layman’s constitutional view is that what he likes is constitutional and that which he doesn’t like is unconstitutional.” One liberal judge found that the homeless had a constitutional right to sleep in the public library. The outrages tend to go both ways, truth be told.

    • Amelia B Preston

      Really? John McCain IS a natural born citizen if he has even one American parent. I was born in Canada but I have American parents, I could have been born in a Russian Mars Outpost and still been an American citizen.

      • Amelia B Preston

        I have a “Certificate of Birth Abroad” that shows I was born American. Of course I also have a Canadian birth certificate that grants me the rights of a Canadian if I were to choose to reside there.

      • Richard Cook

        Then go back to Canada. Or are you running for president like the communist Ted Cruz?

      • Richard Cook

        John McCain was born in Panama when Panama was a U.S. territory. You are not a natural born citizen just because your parents were born here.

    • dancerboots

      Children born in the United states whether to legal or illegal immigrants are U.S. citizens today…probably because it states in the 14th Amendment…all persons born or naturalized in the United States…are citizens of the United States.

      Roe v Wade were decided using the 9th and 14th Amendment. The court declared the abortion statutes void as vague and overbroadly infringing those plaintiffs’ Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

      Prayer is not forbidden in schools. So far we have not been able to read a person’s mind. Anyone can pray, any where at anytime. What pre-Civil war Constitution, if it exists, allowed Congress to pass laws respecting an establishment of religion? Organized prayer favoring one religion was not allowed….possibly because it was an attempt to force that religion’s beliefs on another…or the fear of indoctrination of the young. While this may not have pleased those of the Christian religion and a belief it was stepping on their Constitutional right to practice it prohibits any religion imposing their doctrine on another.

  • surgethis

    Conservatives shut down the second they realize they are speaking to a liberal. Their brains turn completely off and they stop listening. Open minded people threaten the narrow world that conservatives insulate themselves with. The very nature of an open minded liberal automatically triggers their compulsive need to exert authoritative control. They can not risk being exposed for not having authentic personalities. Their pretense is so flimsy liberal see right through it. It’s a catch 22. Until conservatives want to recover and look at themselves and or deal with their damaged selves it is impossible to help them … they are literally in a bubble that protects them from themselves. This is not about liberals. It’s about damaged unconscious people who had replaced a true self with religion and patriotic posturing and righteous indignation … it’s all a front to cover up their lack.

    • Ha!

      Seriously? You make the blanket statement that conservatives shut their brains down when taking to a liberal then go on to pat yourself on the back for how open minded you all are? “Open minded” would mean judging people on an individual basis. That’s what I do; not all liberals are hypocritical punks. But you are.

    • TJ2000

      I think most of us realize that liberals tend to write articles and comments full of

      1) media cliche catch phrases
      2) buzz-words
      3) emotional triggers
      4) insults

      all globed together while actually making no logical point at all except to stir up drama. Your right; many conservatives just shut down and our brains turn completely off and we stop listening once we realize listening to such a glob-oration of foundation-less words is utterly a waste of time.

      Here. I’ll give you an example – Oh wait, you already demonstrated one.

  • I have succeeded in converting my Tea Party “Constitutionalist” family members on one subject, prayer in school by pointing out our family history. Our ancestors lived on the frontier for two hundred years, facing Indian attacks that killed many, hunger, isolation, etc in large part because of their hatred for the State religions (Church of England in Virginia is the best example). They hated tithing to a church they did not believe in, supporting a rigged economy of rich slavers, and forced into repeating prayers they found anathema. Then I asked what would they do if their children were forced to repeat a prayer to the Virgin or Allah. For the first time I could see a little light go on in some eyes….having just ONCE gotten through after years of dealing with schizophrenic political insanity, I felt victorious,

    • TJ2000

      The Tea Party “Constituionalist” aim ( viewpoint ) should be that the Constitution never granted the federal government control of education and the BOE needs to be abolished.

  • Preamble to the constitution starts we the people for the people by the people. So what people consist of “We.”

  • Truthspew

    Well – the five Republicans in the RI Senate voted en bloc for marriage equality. So maybe they saw the writing on the wall before their brethren in the party of No.

  • saganhill

    They’re good at cherry picking and interpreting the Constitution just like they’re good at cherry picking and interpreting the bible. And it’s funny that when they interpret both it conforms to their perverted sense of humanity.

  • Recoloniser

    Allen Clifton, your lot must be a hard one, given where you live. I wish you strength. And joy.

  • Rina L.

    You seem to be overlooking the Libertarian Party, of which I am a member. We believe in freedom of choice and less government. Keep the government out of our lives and homes, and we could all get along just fine.
    Both Democrats and Republicans aim to control every aspect of our lives, ie. what we eat and drink, what we “do to our bodies” (none of their business). Most of you should take the free Libertarian test, which is easily available online, then come back and let us know the results. The majority of people are Libertarians, they just don’t understand the party and their beliefs.

    • Rickster Rickster

      most libertarians are little more than lying republicans. and don’t bother telling me they aren’t. they are the same old racist busy bodies who try to cram their religious views down everybody else’s throats just like the republicans.

  • Eniena

    The Republicans started off as a party of reasonable minded people who came together mainly to combat slavery while also ensuring individual liberty. Admittedly, they did make some missteps. Yet many of its members did initially try to be the best leaders they could to all of American society.

    It’s tragic how the GOP has degenerated into a group of elitists who mainly fight for their own interests and the rich while looking down on the poor or anyone who doesn’t conform with what they view as an ideal human being. They don’t desire liberty for all but a society mixed with plutocracy and social darwinism.

    If only the people who started the Republican party could look into the future and see what their party has become. I can only speculate that they would be horrified and disgusted, just as I am, at what their creation has become: an outdated, insolvent, withered and abominable group

    • Rickster Rickster

      I am so sick of that slavery canard. Lincoln thought slavery should be phased out ending in 1900. the GOP had constitutional amendment before the states to keep slavery as it was at that time forever. it was ratified by 3 states when the civil war broke out and made it moot.

    • Richard Chambers

      oh please you were never a republican moron

  • Randy Foxworthy

    This (article) from the party that forced the diplomatically protected flight of a soveriegn country, carrying it’s president, so that they could search it for the leaker of constitutionally violating acts committed under the Democratic Party’s presidential watch. Don’t give me you BS about how you care for the constitution when your party is right there with the Republicans tearing it apart piece by piece. And by the way everyone’s religion (including Islam) is protected from government intrusion, but the general public doesn’t have the right demand it be stripped from every part of our lives just to protect them from being offended or hurt. There is no constitutionally protected right to not be offended. You so called “progressives” make me sick. You’re as bad and sometimes worse than the conservatives you rail so hard against. It’s your way or the highway, just as it is theirs. We would be better off without both parties. Just regular people trying to serve their country and their fellow citizens and not the party doctrine. Which you so obviously serve above everything else!

    • dancerboots

      It is not that your religious beliefs offend me..or that you can practice then is that you want them written into our laws…that is not allowed by the Constitution. I reside in Kentucky..the land of Constitutional love…that has passed a law respecting an establishment of religion, Christianity, and made it the official religion of the state. While the First Amendment allows you the right to practice your religion also protects my right to not have it imposed upon me. Be glad we have the First Amendment. Undermining it with state laws may come to bite you when Muslims assert their equal right to have what Christians once thought were God given over all other religions. Would you be comfortable with a Muslim allowed to pray five times a day in your child’s school or insist on a Qua-ran class. Would it be okay that the school’s morning prayer be in Hebrew? How about Indians praying to all their Gods or Mormons inserting some of their strange beliefs…though no stranger than any other religion. They are all a little strange and profess to be the “right one”..By the way, I am a Christian.

  • poppaDavid

    You may wish to mention Article 3 Section 3 that defines “treason”. A lot of the “Constitutional supporters” advocate making war agains the United States.

    • dancerboots

      and seceding from the government ..also not allowed

  • Matthew Reece

    “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.” ~Lysander Spooner

  • Educated liberal

    The biggest problem in the parties are people ASSUMING they know what values the other CITIZENS hold important. There are wack-a-doos on both sides, and each side seems to think that the other hates them. The fact is that most people (Demo or Repub) are good people who truly have different ideas of what is best for our country. I have staunch conservatives and staunch liberals in my family. I am a Democrat, very liberal – and I don’t want to take anyone’s guns. I think that the welfare system is imperfect. I think that illegals should not get benefits. I think that “god” should be left in the Pledge (which it is in every elementary school I’ve taught in). I think people need to calm down and focus on working together to achieve prosperity in our country. Even this article, which has excellent points, is inflammatory is it’s approach. Look at how everyone got on a high horse about Chick-fil-A!!!! Who cares about that loser and how he runs his company. Why are you all arguing about what it’s like to be an employee there? Can anyone see how you all MISSED THE POINT?! This country would be a much more peaceful place if we all respected each other for our differences. If we valued change and independence (which are two values this country was founded on). I just read an article about Matt Damon sending his kids to private school, and the comments were along the lines of “It’s all Obama’s fault” (I’m actually quoting). This just confused me – how is everything Obama’s fault? How could it be? We have a huge government system in place. Obama is not King, or Dictator, he is President. And he compromises a hell of a lot more than W did.

  • A conservative on the fence

    “The only amendment they really defend without question is our Second Amendment—and even then they ignore the entire first half of it and just focus on the last part.”
    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…
    I don’t understand. How do we “ignore” that part?

  • Fascisthater

    I notice this trend too. I live in a small conservative town in Pennsylvania and it’s these same Second Amendment nuts that support madatory drug testing for all school students, utilizing unconstitutional procedures in order to arrest minor drug offenders, shove their religion down our throats, support conscription and so many other things that I don’t feel like angering myself any further by mentioning them. I wish someone would poke them on the shoulder and say “Hey, there’s more to the U.S Constitution than the Second Amendment”.
    It does appear that the very same people who are the most vocal concerning the American flag, patriotism, liberty and freedom appear to actually hate these concepts. Also, what’s the point of protecting the American flag if you oppose everything it stands for!? Our Founding Fathers would not be too happy with many of today’s conservatives, that I’m pretty sure of.
    It’s nice to see that more people are finally beginning to stand up to these fascists, something you didn’t see too much of in the not so distant past. Unfortunately the removal of these freedom haters from our country is a painstakingly slow process. I’m not what one would call a diehard progressive by a longshot, though I consider myself to be very liberal (not necessarily libertarian), but it’s these right wing nutjobs who would sell this country, our precious Constitution and our freedoms out in a heartbeat faster than any other political group, and under the facade that they stand for these the most.

  • Check out the New American Freedom Index and you will see the conservatives score higher in voting for constitutional issues than do the liberals.

  • TJ2000

    Yes; you make some points – but who said, “I don’t want my guns or my marriage registered in Washington??” A Democratic or Republican Candidate?

    Lets see you write an article about how Democrats have tried to shrink government and leaving the power with the each individual. Love to read that one. Do you think the Constitution placed limits on the federal government? Do you think it outlined a dual federalism nation? Why is the federal government ALWAYS the only government in the minds of so many than?

  • TJ2000

    Funny you post a picture with Rand Paul in it – As matter of fact he has disturbed the “Popular” Republican base with all the points you hit upon. Which are far and few between.

    1 – Rand stated, “I don’t want my marriage or my guns registered in Washington D.C. ”

    2 – Rand is less Pro-Life than any other Republican who has been running for office; His campaign announced it was a State decision.

    3- Rand is pro-school choice and for State ran school systems.

    What’s funny about the “progressives” – is they like to think ( and I’m quoting you here on this ), “Ignore the fact that the Third Amendment [[[proves just how outdated some of the ideas of the Constitution are]]]”. <— How can you even quote such a thing and say the other party "hates" the Constitution while insisting the thing is "outdated".

    Short of abortion, which seems to be your only substantial point, you have no argument. Not all Republicans support the Pro-Life stance School was to be a state issue NEVER was meant to be federal. Religion and Marriage goes both ways – FORCING the non-public entities into preforming someone else s beliefs IS NOT "protection individual rights".

    It amazes me a "progressive" who is all about stuffing the federal government into healthcare, price-setting, forced "belief" marriages, forced land grabs, etc.. etc.. etc.. can even attempt to say Republicans are against the Constitution. Perhaps a little reflection to what the "progressives" lobby for and WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION that right is granted would do you some good.