EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Pundits Fuel the Right’s Latest Rage
‘Constitutional’ conservatives’ selective love for Bill of Rights
Right-leaning pundits play a key role in a growing fad of self-styled “constitutional conservatives” who say Barack Obama is subverting the U.S. Constitution—and brandish pocket-sized copies of the document to prove it. The pundits cite a potpourri of purportedly unconstitutional policies, including healthcare legislation, corporate bailouts and perhaps even a cover-up over where Obama was born. 
And they’re making an impact. A Nexis database search of U.S. newspapers and news wires using the terms “constitutional conservative/conservatism” gives some indication of the growing prominence of the trend. Rarely mentioned in the year 2000 (12 times) or even in 2009 (30), it caught fire in 2010 with 628 mentions and now outpaces “compassionate conservative.”
Constitutional conservatism counts among its ranks some of the GOP’s biggest names: relative newcomers like Sarah Palin, senators Jim DeMint and Rand Paul, and Rep. Michele Bachmann, along with old-guard conservatives such as senators John Kyl and Orrin Hatch and Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese. The right’s leading think tank, the Heritage Foundation, regularly decries assaults on the Constitution (e.g., “Restoring the American Compact,” 9/16/10). The Cato Institute, which challenges the healthcare act on constitutional grounds (Cato.org, 12/17/10), specializes in arguing that the financial bailouts were unconstitutional (Cato.org, 10/20/08.)
In February, 80 conservative groups signed on to a manifesto, “The Mount Vernon Statement: Constitutional Conservatism: A Statement for the 21st Century.” In addition to Heritage president Edwin Feulner, signatories included Meese, Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform and Morton Blackwell of the Leadership Foundation. Conservative media figures who signed on included Human Events’ Tom Winter, National Review’s Kathryn Lopez and Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center.
Right-wing appeals to “constitutionalism” are not unprecedented; the Clinton years also saw a surge in constitutionalism on the right, largely located in militia and so-called patriot groups, whose ideology resembled today’s constitutional conservatism. The transformation of fringe views of the ’90s into today’s mainstream conservatism has much to do with an enthusiastic corps of apostles in the corporate media.
“That Rock in the Healthcare Road? It’s Called the Constitution” was the headline over a widely syndicated George Will column (Washington Post, 1/14/10) lambasting White House–backed healthcare legislation for requiring individuals to buy private insurance. In another column (Washington Post, 3/29/09), “Bailing Out of the Constitution,” Will targeted the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (better known as the TARP bailouts) for allowing the White House to decide where the funds should be spent, which Will says violates a constitutional doctrine forbidding Congress from delegating such powers:
Will’s appeal to the constitutional authority of GOP partisans at FreedomWorks, and to constitutional language he admits “does not spell out” what he is attempting to argue, is amusing. But it’s also worth noting that the bailout law was originally signed by George W. Bush (10/3/08); Will’s column declaring it unconstitutional ran five months later, after Obama, who continued the program, took office.
Fox News contributor and Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer (Special Report, 7/9/10) also says the healthcare act subverts the American compact: “Obama-care won’t stand a minute of scrutiny under Tenth Amendment analysis.” (The Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not granted to the federal government “to the States…or to the people,” is a favorite of “constitutional conservatives.”)
On Rush Limbaugh’s radio show, where calling the president a “boy” (10/27/09) or describing him as looking “demonic” (10/18/10) is considered responsible commentary, charging the White House with subverting the constitution is de rigueur (e.g., “Obama Thugocracy on Display in Un- constitutional Chrysler Takeover,” Rush Limbaugh.com; 5/5/09).
Fox News talker and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol boasts (Weekly Standard, 6/28/10) of “the peaceful constitutionalists-populist political realignment” that he and fellow conservative pundits have helped create, adding, “The small people are winning.” According to Kristol (Fox News Sunday, 4/11/10):
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

23 Comments so far
Show AllAnd this is as opposed to Obama's love of civil liberties?
This pretense of style being the same as substance is becoming quite old and boring, quite frankly.
I'll hypothesize that our population's tangible greed and need for the literal interpretations of texts - be they secular - the Constitution - or religious - the Bible comes from a much deeper source.
As evidenced by the results of Myers Briggs Personality Type batteries administered for decades to the American population the result that most sticks out for me is this:
S or sensation-oriented people in the US are between 66-74% of the population while I or intuition-oriented people are 26-34% of the population.
ALL other metrics - E/I, T/F, J/P - are much more evenly split as evidenced by the linked chart:
http://www.capt.org/mbti-assessment/estimated-frequencies.htm
What does this mean?
Sensation oriented people prefer to perceive their realities through concrete things: texts, money, tangible goods while intuitive people more rely upon past experience and abstract thought to help determine the world in which they exist.
The needed literal interpretations of the Bible and the Constitution as well as the accumulation of tangible goods are thus all outgrowths of a population that is seriously skewed along the sensation-oriented axis.
Whether these differences are innate in our population or through the constant barrage of propaganda that fills our minds this outcome has been shaped needs to be researched but as pointed out above the skewing along this one axis line does not bode well for our society.
I uses to enjoy taking the Myers Briggs test (or the similar Kiersley Tempermant Sorter) as a sort of parlour game with friends. Good observations.
I suspect that some of Myers Briggs parameters, especially S/N, are culturally influenced. Any data on this?
"What does this mean?"
Since you're basing your critique on a dodgy psychological questionnaire, it means *absolutely nothing*.
Maybe dodgy, maybe not, but it is apparent in my day-to-day dealings that there are people who seem to rely on revered writings and hidebound tradition to make sense of the world around them, and feel quaite lost without their guidance. And there are others, who have little regard for such old stuff and rely on their own varied experience, their analysis that are always subject to revision, or other's contemporary analyses to make sense of the world. In the USA at least, there are many more of the former, and fewer of the laltter.
So, polylcarpe's hypothesis seemed perfectly valid and insightful to me, and your reply was rude and unwarranted. (among the maddening changes to this comment utility, there is no longer a "flag the moderator" featrure)
Sabo,
I have to agree that it is basically meaningless. These attempts to quantify a person's psychological makeup through the various psychological batteries do not hold up. They may make up a small part of a clinical diagnosis but to use one as polycarpe has is not justifiable.
OYE
Does this explain how the corporate msm has the people who have the least to gain, shouting the loudest for the status-quo?
Are conservatives evil or stupid?
greedy
Undeclared and unending war on Iraq, "The Patriot Act", and Signing Statements. Now those are actions strictly in line with the Constitution...
Oh, that's right, they mean the ones about not taking any fun-money away from the wealthy.
Hmmm
Where were the calls to abide by the Constitution in the aftermath of 9-11 when the "Patriot" Act mysteriously appeared (all 300 plus pages) within days? Where are (were) the pleas for the Constitution regarding the FED etc......pick one there are literally hundreds to choose from. And of course the recent whooper from the Supreme Court-essentially giving Corporations the same rights as citizens. Except of course Corporations actually have far more rights then mere citizens. This ruling in essence give the ruling elite (the ones that actually own 3/4 of of the corporate wealth in the US a mere 1/10 of 1 percent) special status above the rest of us. Show me anywhere in the Constutition where Corporations are given any "rights" at all. In fact if you read the papers of the framers of the Constitution they were afraid of 2 things. National Banks and Corporations. I wonder why..........
Of course, the left wing loonies tend to forget that Citizens United said that both corporations and labor unions have first amendment rights. There is a good article, by the way, in yesterday's New York Times that points to a long list of U.S. Supreme Court cases that held that corporations have rights under the Constitution and that corporations such as those that own and publish The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and the various television news programs would have a hard time if the first amendment didn't apply to them in the same way as it applies to you and me as individuals.
Papers were quite able to publish through three quarters of the 19th century, before the bogus notion of corporate personhood emerged. So sorry, that won't wash. And the fact that Citizens United applies also to labor unions doesn't matter much. Unions have been eviscerated after a four decade long, merciless campaign against them by the Business community--including often illegal tactics.
www.movetoamend.org
"The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and the various television news programs would have a hard time if the first amendment didn't apply to them in the same way as it applies to you and me as individuals."
What a breathtakingly stupid statement! The first Amendment specifically includes the freedom... of the press.."!
And why, long before "Citizens United" in the late 19th and early 20th century, did we have a vastly more free and diverse press - including a vigorous labor and partisan political press - especially on the left?
And you remarks alluding to the power of organized labor is a joke. The capitalists have brutally destroyed organized labor, historically through considerable bloodshed.
Hmmm
I would say that once again this site has been compromised, sold out, pick your adjective. Any way you slice it any "mainstream" online site will eventually either sell out or be sold out. The 1/10 of 1 percent has a problem, a big problem.
You may recall the old saw about the truth shall set you free. Well they are afraid of the truth, very afraid. Eventually the internet will provide no more "truth" than the mainstream media does today. It is happening around the globe as we speak.
"...the best lack conviction, and the worst are full of passionate intensity..."
"The small people are winning" - Bill Kristol.
War is peace, black is white, up is down and conservatives now care about "the small people".
To me it is strange that the 4th Amendment is seldom quoted or cited by these same folks.
By making the Constitution itself the foundation of their appeal, conservatives place the burden of proof upon legislation they oppose. By making morality the issue, conservatives place the burden of proof upon those whose morality they attack. By making patriotism they issue, conservatives the burden of proof of national interest upon those they oppose....
The "Constitution" as a conservative challenge has been a regular figleaf for conservatives all along. Nixon, for instance, called himself a "strict constructionalist" ... until he imposed wage and price controls. I have previously discussed shortcomings in the theory of the US Constitution, and am developing as essay on the topic at:
http://home.roadrunner.com/~markwrede/NonFic/FourthFunction.html
the Constitution is obviously flawed, or things would be going better...we don't need to try to stick to the Constitution, or amend it...hard to think it was never what we were led to believe...neither was the Revolutionary War...
this is the time to turn off the tv, go outside and chat with neighbors about how we might work together down the road...
what we might do on, and immediately following, Global Start Date: September 22, 2012...the planetwide, unanimous rejection of the modern world...the return to local, individual engagement...
what would George Will do the day there is no newspaper to publish his words, no camera to carry him over wires, and into homes?
perhaps he might remove his tie, among other things, pick a wild, growing green plant, and eat it...then another...
then, he might look for some water, and wish he'd been more concerned about industrial and chemical devastation...