Constitutional Scholars

It has always amazed me that there is a group of folk out there who bill themselves as “constitutional scholars.” These are lawyerly types who believe they have a firmer grasp on the simple wording of the U.S. constitution than you or I do. What in fact is going on is that they most often seek to torture the short, 500 words of Article 1 Section 8 until it meets the requirements of their political handlers, or justifies their preconceived ideas about what government ought to do.

After the GOP’s reading of the constitution in the House of Representatives, many on the liberal-left stood, mouth’s agape, looking for any reason to fault the idea. They called it political theater. That’s not a joke. These liberal congressmen passed Obamacare in 2010, and then in 2011 called reading the constitution of the United States in the Capitol building political theater.

The constitution should be read every year when congressmen take the oath of office. They are swearing their adherence to it and its principles, why not read it and remind them of what they protect?

Liberal constitutional scholars like Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer (seen in a video nearby) want to “interpret” the constitution for America in order to allow Congress to do what Congress wants to do. As Daniel Oliver keenly notes in The American Spectator “the Framers, like the Tea Partiers, feared government and its power more than they feared random lawbreakers. The state is a far larger threat to our liberties than any mere criminal could possibly be.”