"The Economist" Chides Teapartier's Constitutional Stand as Infantile

"One of the guiding principles of the tea-party movement is based on a myth "

So says "The Economist".



This same argument is used by the same group of people when they chide Christians who believe the bible, an artifact far older than our constitution.



These devils, yes I called them devils because I believe that best describes them, twist the language and change the meanings of the very words written upon our Constitution to suit their depraved ideologies. Using the same argument the serpent in the garden said to Eve.."did God really say?" calling into question the very word of God to Adam and Eve.



This tactic seems to work every time it is tried on a gullible and easily misled populace. To an out-of-control government, discrediting the founders and calling the Constitution a living and breathing document serve their purpose to seize more and more freedoms from the American people and replace our God-given rights with government permissions; thereby setting themselves up as lords over the people.



Well Pharoah tried that once and so did the Babylonian King, both of them reaped judgment of God for their actions.



Perhaps these devils shall meet the same fate? One can hope!

Amplify’d from www.economist.com

The constitution, on its own, does not provide the solution. Indeed, there is something infantile in the belief of the constitution-worshippers that the complex political arguments of today can be settled by simple fidelity to a document written in the 18th century. Michael Klarman of the Harvard Law School has a label for this urge to seek revealed truth in the sacred texts. He calls it “constitutional idolatry”.

The constitution is a thing of wonder, all the more miraculous for having been written when the rest of the world’s peoples were still under the boot of kings and emperors (with the magnificent exception of Britain’s constitutional monarchy, of course). But many of the tea-partiers have invented a strangely ahistorical version of it. For example, they say that the framers’ aim was to check the central government and protect the rights of the states. In fact the constitution of 1787 set out to do the opposite: to bolster the centre and weaken the power the states had briefly enjoyed under the new republic’s Articles of Confederation of 1777.

One of the guiding principles of the tea-party movement is based on a myth Read more at www.economist.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/bu1u