The Tea Party should be grateful to our founders for the Constitution they shaped, yet it is not good enough for them.
Some of the Constitution’s key provisions invite obstruction of laws and practices that would serve all Americans, especially the most vulnerable. The Constitution’s powers tilt in favor to the elite and the minority of citizens.
It is possible for the least populous states to control the agenda, and in different ways that has happened.
The Chicago Tribune reports that some in the Tea Party movement along with other conservatives seek reconsideration of several constitutional issues. They are right in the sense that the Constitution is in desperate need of review, but their approach is only a regression to a system not much better than King George’s rule.
Their starting point for constitutional revision is the 14th Amendment, which assures citizenship to anyone born in the United States. Members of Congress who created the 14th Amendment had sought to guarantee equal rights for former slaves shortly after the Civil War ended.
It is doubtful if Rep. Thaddeus Stevens of Lancaster, Pa., and his associates foresaw that immigrants would flock here illegally and give birth to children who are automatically deemed citizens of the United States.
That’s a strange situation, of course. Federal authorities could potentially allow children to remain and be afforded an array of public services while their parents are deported.
Not exactly a family-friendly policy.
Anyone vaguely familiar with the process of amending the Constitution recognizes that it is a complicated matter which ultimately requires the consensus of sharply divided constituencies. Even the recognition of motherhood and apple pie could be stopped dead at any point in the process.
Depending on one’s point of view, there does seem to be something wrong with how the 14th Amendment affects immigration. Either the measure can split families apart, or it permits a nice little racket for illegal immigrants to establish roots in the United States.
What we must love about conservative revisionists is their skill at, well, revisionism. Here’s what
Mark Meckler, a co-founder of Tea Party Patriots, pronounces: “The Founding Fathers understood the states created the federal government, and the states should reign supreme. Not the other way around. We are far from that.”
Thirteen of the current 50 states “created the federal government,” and they allowed the federal government momentous powers that naturally superseded state laws wherever state and national laws conflicted. The remaining 37 states could only be admitted to the union by the assent of Congress, so who created whom?
The article also relates that tea party advocates support a return to “founding principles” and adherence to the framers’ original intentions.
When the Constitutional Convention began in May 1787, the foremost principle of the delegates was to establish a framework to effectively govern the new nation without depriving anyone of their freedom. At least, that’s how it started. Some delegates arrived late and others departed early.
By late August, the foremost principle was to get this chore over with and head home. In fact, Richard Beeman’s book chronicling the Constitutional Convention, entitled “Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution,” raises questions as to whether the delegates inserted clauses in this much-glorified document just so they could settle minor disagreements swiftly.
As for the concept of original intent, whose original intent? Some delegates sought to end the slave trade while Deep South delegates in particular resisted. The end result was to allow the trade to continue another 20 years.
James Madison and other framers vehemently fought for proportionate representation in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and representatives of the smaller states - ironically, that faction included New York and New Jersey - demanded equal representation in Congress. The compromise required proportionate representation in the House and allowed each state two senators.
Interestingly, some Tea Partiers now want senators to be chosen by their respective state legislatures, as was originally the case. Plenty is wrong with the Senate’s governing structure, but that’s not one of them.
I can understand why they do not focus on the absence of proportionality in Senate representation. With two senators each, every state has equal clout, which means that the 26 least populous states can conceivably call the shots.
In reality, the problem lies in ideology. More smaller states are conservative than liberal. California and New York - the first and third most populous states, respectively - together comprise one-sixth of the nation’s population; all four senators are Democrats and Democratic presidential candidates regularly have these states locked up.
So, the Tea Party opens with a built-in advantage supplied to them by delegates from the small states and the slave states.
One of their proposed regressive steps is to eliminate the income tax. How would they replace it?
Here’s an idea: Tax states on the basis of the amount of land. Alaska would be in deep trouble.
