The following is an excerpt from OpinionJournal.com’s “Best of the Web” written by the editor, James Taranto.
NOTE: The excerpts below are from the Aug. 24th BOTW archives.
We’re Not Signing Up for That Course
“Study Links Chronic Fatigue to Virus Class”–headline, New York Times, Aug. 24
Out on a Limb
“Afghan Poll a Chance for Change, or More of the Same”–headline, Reuters, Aug. 24
Accountability Journalism
Here’s a classic from the Associated Press, a dispatch by Ben Evans titled “SPIN METER: GOP Hot, Cold on Constitution.” The idea is that Republicans are hypocrites, because–well, the first two paragraphs give you the idea:
Republican Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia won his seat in Congress campaigning as a strict defender of the Constitution. He carries a copy in his pocket and is particularly fond of invoking the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
But it turns out there are parts of the document he doesn’t care for–lots of them. He wants to get rid of the language about birthright citizenship, federal income taxes and direct election of senators, among others. He would add plenty of stuff, including explicitly authorizing castration as punishment for child rapists.
This hot-and-cold take on the Constitution is surprisingly common within the GOP, particularly among those like Broun who portray themselves as strict Constitutionalists and who frequently accuse Democrats of twisting the document to serve political aims.
Whatever one thinks of Broun’s suggested amendments–and except for abolishing the income tax, they sound like bad ideas to us–Evans’s argument is either ignorant or intellectually dishonest. There is no inconsistency whatever in Broun’s position.
When one argues for amending the Constitution, one is adhering to the Constitution, which provides (in Article V) a process for changing it. It is very difficult: First an amendment must be proposed (requiring two-thirds votes in both houses of Congress, or a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of the states), then it must be ratified (requiring the assent of three-fourths of the states).
“Twisting the document to serve political aims,” by contrast, means passing laws irrespective of whether the Constitution authorizes them.
To take an example: Democrats did not suggest amending the Constitution to authorize Congress to require people to purchase medical insurance. Instead, they enacted such a requirement into law (by simple majority, and we do mean simple!), asserting that this was a regulation of interstate commerce. That is twisting the Constitution to serve political aims. There may well be examples of Republicans’ doing the same, but Evans does not produce a single one.
For more “Best of the Web” click here and look for the “Best of the Web Today” link in the middle column below “Today’s Columnists.
