The Tea Party, Constitution and a Case of Heartburn

The other night, after having far too nice a dinner, I awoke at 2:00 AM with a serious case of heartburn. I love going to Johnny B’s for beer and a burger with friends, but this is almost always the outcome. A meal like that never used to be a problem for me 25 years ago.  Initially I tried channel surfing in the idle hope of finding a distraction to my discomfort. 

The weight loss infomercials did not capture my attention so I moved to the computer to see if I had missed anything significant in the news and was reminded that I had totally ignored the Republican presidential debate of mid-September.   I know the transition is strange, but is anything really normal at that hour of the morning? 

As expected, there was not much to be found of substance on the debate except for one question.  At the end of the debate and apparently in the spirit of personality probing, moderator Wolf Blitzer of CNN asked each of the candidates “what they would bring to the White House should they become president.”

Questions like this are intended to show us something more personal about the candidates and maybe help us to relate to them. This is the political version of “what did you do on your summer vacation?”

Mitt Romney said he would bring a bust of Winston Churchill to the White House. Rick Santorum said more bedrooms for his seven children. Jon Huntsman said his motorcycle and Rick Perry spoke of his beautiful wife.

In every group of politicians there is generally one who goes out of their way to be different. In response to the same question, Michele Bachmann stated very proudly that she’d bring the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. She finished by saying “And that’s it.”

Ms. Bachmann is currently considered the darling of the conservative Tea Party movement and seldom misses an opportunity to wave the flag and professes to be the icon for her movement. 

I know it is unrealistic to hold politicians to too high a standard; if we did we would never elect any and then they would all end out night managers at convenience stores struggling to successfully make correct change.  Nevertheless, I would hope our elected officials know a little bit about our founding documents. 

She named 3 documents; maybe she doesn’t know that the Bill of Rights is the Constitution.  More correctly, the Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments of the Constitution which collectively limit the power of our Federal Government. Like any good contract, every paragraph matters so I really hope she sees value in all 27 amendments since you can’t really pick and choose.

Even if her technical details and syntax missed the target, her message seemed clear: She wants to be the standard bearer of the Constitution in today’s political arena. Apparently she feels that no one else is paying attention to our grand document’s fine words and intent.

From what I have read of her beliefs, she views the Constitution as a symbol of very limited government when it comes to things like regulation, banking, health care and taxation. On the other side of the coin, she certainly has an expansive view of constitutional tolerance of religious expression, given the way her fervent and outspoken Christian evangelical beliefs permeate so much of her political philosophy and rationale.

With each new major political election season, there is generally one candidate who claims as their platform that they are champions and defenders of the Constitution.  As we spin up for the 2012 presidential campaign (have you noticed that it gets earlier and earlier?) it seems clear to me that this time around it will be Ms. Bachmann and her Tea Party colleagues.

It is important to point out that the Tea Party faithful seem to have their own special interpretation of the Constitution specifically supporting their agenda.  Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on the moment and the issue, the Constitution is just vague enough to be open to evolving interpretation. 

Federal courts and specifically the Supreme Court make a career out of studying and implementing the words of our Constitution.

I am by no means a “Constitutional Scholar”; I’m just a guy who reads too much.   Some believe that the words should be applied based on their specific meaning when put to paper over 200 years ago.  Others believe the vagueness means that the Constitution is a living document subject to reinterpretation as our society evolves and changes.

Some of the more interesting articles and debates about the Constitution focus on the following. 

• There is a never ending concern about the First Amendment and its promised freedom of religion while still offering protection from religion with the establishment clause and the not prohibit free exercise clause at the center of this.
• Despite the time in which it was written, it is significant to note the lack of mention in the Constitution of God or slavery.
• There is the uniqueness of the 21st Amendment which repeals the 18th Amendment (prohibition).

I am a firm believer that the Constitution should be considered a flexible or pliable document. The most recent amendment was ratified in 1992 and we may yet find need for another amendment to our Constitution. 

The very amendment process detailed in Article V supports a notion contrary to Bachmanns’ — that the limited government created in 1787 was expected to be changed, reformed and potentially expanded.  That does not mean our government shouldn’t also shrink once in a while; it would be an interesting change of pace as a minimum.

It was only a few years ago that liberals were urging the public to turn back to constitutional values; at that time the context hinged on President George W. Bush’s expansive war powers and the reach of the Patriot Act which broached concerns about privacy and if the Federal Government was overstepping its powers as defined in the Constitution. No doubt the context will shift again.

Clearly, the genius of our Constitution is that at any given time in history, liberal, conservative, and anyone in between may find reason to argue that they are the protectors of this venerable document.

Over 220 years ago 39 members of the Constitutional Convention signed their names to a document that they hoped would be the foundation of our experiment in democratic governance. It is obvious that their legacy is still a work in progress. As different organizations over time each proclaim themselves the protectors of the Constitution, I can only marvel that it manages to serve so many diverse groups so well.   

The Constitution does not belong to a single candidate, party or ideology.  Call me idealistic, but I do hope that whoever ultimately becomes president will understand its broad reaching value.  It may be naïve of me as well, but I also hope they understand that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are one and the same.

All this came from a little heartburn and the Tea Party. Draw your own conclusions.