Social Question

ETpro's avatar

Are GOPers really the Constitutionalists they claim to be?

Asked by ETpro (34145 points ) December 10th, 2013

When the Tea Party took over management of Speaker Boehner and the remaining rational members of the GOP back in 2010, they insisted to great fanfare they would open sessions of the House with a reading of the Constitution. Of course, reading has its challenges. Some of the pages stuck together and so were omitted, but they made up for that by reading the Declaration of Independence as well and claiming it was part of the Constitution. And one new member, Representative Mike Fitzpatrick, a Republican from Pennsylvania, had missed the swearing in ceremony and instead raised his right hand before a televised version of it, so he technically wasn’t even a House Member at the time he did his part of the reading.

They also were going to cite the constitutional authority for every new piece of legislation they took up, but that didn’t last long. Repealing Obamacare 43 times and 51 bills trying to restrict or outlaw abortion are difficult to justify with a specific clause in the Constitution. Having run on Jobs, Jobs, Jobs here’s an interesting list of what they actually did.

And can anyone explain how people that claim to be Constitutionalists could read a Constitution that never mentions “corporation” written by men who had never heard of the New York Stock Exchange or even a corporate form anything like a modern corporation, and come up with such a cockamamie reading of the law as “the personhood of corporations” being guaranteed by the USA’s founding document? Apparently when cons rail against judicial activism it has nothing to do with what the law actually says, just whether the judge involved found in favor of their pet ideology. And yet their 2012 standards bearer swore corporations are people to great applause from his GOPer friends.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

17 Answers

DWW25921's avatar

The GOP are owned by the same corporations that the Democrats are owned by. Is anyone in Washington really who they “claim” to be? When I was 5 I claimed to be a dump truck. Was I really what I claimed to be? No, of course not. I was full of crap. Just like the GOP and the Democrats. So, my answer to you is a resounding NO!

dougiedawg's avatar

A few relevant quotes:

“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is being governed by your inferiors.” Plato

“Democracy is the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people.” Oscar Wilde

drhat77's avatar

High profile sociopaths will claim to be anyone necessary just long enough to get ahead.

Of course you could argue that they were of the “loose reading” school of constitutional interpretation. (Like the Federalists? Am I getting that right?). And it would have to be a VERY loose reading if you thought there was room in the constitution for an amendment banning gay marriage.

bolwerk's avatar

They have spent the past 30+ years celebrating stupidity, so it’s no surprise the only people left in the party are the stupids.

The funny part is, if you’re not a “strict constructionalist,” then maybe the personhood of corporations isn’t even such a stretch since it is at least vaguely in line with common law.

ETpro's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Great link.

@DWW25921 That false equivalence fallacy is such an easy claim to make, and so inherently ridiculous as to be laughable. Both parties have been corrupted to some extent by corporate money but they are incredibly far from equal.

@dougiedawg OK, two quotes that tend to refute each other. But what do you think?

@dougiedawg How true. And that’s who is running the GOPer assylum now.

@bolwerk Very true.

dougiedawg's avatar

@ ETpro- They are not in opposition since the bludgeoners are hard at work with their inferior vision of America’s future as I type…let us pray that it all sorts out for the good of the nation at some point!

rojo's avatar

When you are of such a mindset, you can justify anything.

Just this morning I read an editorial in our local paper where one of our regular staunchly conservative neighbors uses the fact that the poor in the US are not as poor as those in other countries, or even as poor as the US poor a hundred years ago, to justify continuing to reduce the aid they presently receive and keep healthcare unavailable to them. .

DWW25921's avatar

@ETpro I will give you that they suck in different ways. Republicans, being (I believe) the first to sell out are not the party of moral fortitude nor are they the patriotic party. Anyone who believes the Democrats are the party defending the rights of the worker is diluted. So your assertion is correct. These are just a few examples but the parties have in fact betrayed their constituents in very different ways. I will en-devour to point that out more often.

rojo's avatar

@DWW25921 I think you mean deluded. Although, come to think about it, diluted works.

ETpro's avatar

@DWW25921 Here’s my point. This is Elizabeth Warren making a speech on the Senate Floor during the shutdown. It’s a 6 minute video. What would happen to the speaker if a Republican made a similar speech?

dougiedawg's avatar

@ ETpro…the boogeyman would cease to exist and they couldn’t hide behind him anymore:)

DWW25921's avatar

@ETpro Watched the video… Calling Republicans extremists is a little silly coming from an ultra liberal. I see the same tennis match of crap slinging and “our way optimism” that made me become an independent. Lets jab the other side and wonder why they don’t cooperate. As for what would happen if a Republican made the speech… The press would report it with a negative slant. I’m just sick of this garbage to be honest.

ETpro's avatar

@DWW25921 I don’t think I called Republicans extremists. My point was they are not the same as Democrats. You know damned well what would happen to any Republican making that speech. They would be immediately purged from the party. You have either forgotten what your original premise was, or you are dissimulating now to cover the fact that you realize that premise was a false equivalence fallacy.

DWW25921's avatar

@ETpro I heard lots of propaganda in that speech and submit the idea that people that polarized are part of the problem with this country. Although the subjects would obviously differ, why is that sort of speech any different than a propaganda spewing Republican blowhard? Do you think you could honestly rely on her to make an impartial decision, on anything? She’s about as diplomatic as a rabid piranha.

“On November 6, 2012, Warren defeated incumbent Scott Brown with a total of 53.7% of the votes.” ~Wikipedia. To further illustrate whether or not someone this polarized can effectively represent her constituents she won by a small margin. Do you think she’s going to go out of her way to see that the needs of the others (almost half) of her state are met?

Boston is a very liberal city. The outlying area and Western mass tends to be conservative. She rallied votes in the Midwestern part by claiming to be a church going Methodist. Of course that was a load of crap but she got the moderate folks off the fence in her favor. Tell the people what they want to hear and they will vote!

How has she promoted Christianity since moving to Washington? How is this type of strategy any different than what the other side does? Now back to that speech, would she have made that, while campaigning in central Massachusetts?

Of course Republicans and Democrats are different. But their tactics are the same. Their sponsors are the same and their corruption and greed are the same. I think you know this.

DWW25921's avatar

I kind of hoped you would reply…

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther