That Pesky Old Document!

Prodded by the so-called "originalist" Tea Party Republicans, newly seated Speaker, Republican John Boehner of Ohio, called for a "complete" oral reading of the US Constitution, as the first official act of the 112th Congress.  So, with great theatrical fanfare, members of both parties marched up to the lectern and read a portion of our hallowed document.  Other than as a publicity stunt, there does not seem to be any real substantive reason for this display.  However, some importance may be gleaned from those elements of the Constitution that were purposely edited out by the Republican leadership.  Any references to slavery, like the infamous three-fifths compromise in Article One and the fugitive slave clause of Article Four were missing. This seems a bit hypocritical to me, especially since the reading was demanded by people who claim that the legality of the Constitution is only valid within the context of its "original intent."

If in fact originalism is a legal premise, and most constitutional scholars seem to think that it is not, then anything included after the "original" ratification of 1789 would be invalid. Or are they claiming that this philosophical legalese does not begin to apply until after the Bill of Rights was ratified?  Then does that mean that women may not vote, slavery is again legal, US Senators may not be directly elected, only white male property owners have fully franchised civil rights, presidential terms may not be limited, and (one I am sure the Tea Party crowd and the super rich would love) a graduated income tax is illegal?  One must ask, with out really expecting an answer, just when does "original intent" kick in?

On the other hand, the very authors of the US Constitution, so heralded by the political right, actually built-in some mechanisms that totally invalidate the idea of an interpretation of the Constitution being fixed in time. Remember those parts that the Republicans did not want read on the floor of Congress?  Those and many others have disappeared over time because the Founding Fathers added Article Five to the sacred text.  In case you missed the reading, Article Five establishes the processes for amending the document.  And, oh yeah, everything in the Constitution may be amended away.  Further, at the end of Article One, Section Eight, these same American patriots added the so-called "Elastic Clause."  This little gem says that Congress can do whatever it deems "necessary and proper" to insure that the enumerated powers listed earlier in Section Eight be carried out.  It seems that even the Founding Fathers were not originalists, or they would have written a much more inflexible body of national law.

Without the application of too much intellectual depth, it is pretty clear that the Tea Party and ultra conservative wing of the Republican Party are not really interested divining the intent of Washington, Madison, Hamilton, et al, but in doing their own bit of "revisionism" to make the Constitution fit their narrow political agenda. Or maybe they really are interested in buying and selling people again, and insuring that only white male property owners can vote.