Dem Representative Rants About Our "400 Year Old" Constitution

Posted: May 06, 2014 12:14 AM

The Republicans introduced (and passed) a bill that would require the President of the United States to enforce laws as they are written. Republican Trey Gowdy summarized the sentiment behind the bill nicely when he explained that Congress passes laws… Not suggestions. The bill is in response to the President’s most recent unilateral changes to Obamacare. But, the fact that it takes a literal “act of Congress” to make the President do his job, is not really the point of this article. I’m afraid it is far more basic than that.

Representative Sheila Jackson, a Democrat from Texas (yes… Texas has a few Democrats), argued in opposition to the bill. And her overall point – that forcing the President to follow the Constitution is somehow unconstitutional – was not the most impressive moment of her deliriously liberal tirade. Instead, what really caught attention, was her assertion that our Constitution was over 400 years old.

This, of course, is news to everybody… Including the people that ratified the Constitution 227 years ago.

Um… First of all: “How well it is, that we’ve lasted some 400 years operating under the Constitution…” Really? “How well it is”? (Grammar check, please. And what is she wearing? Is that a British Colonial uniform?)

Then again, what’s a couple centuries, give or take? Especially for a Political Science major from Yale. (Yeah… She’s a graduate of Yale. There’s probably an article to be written about the intellectual decline of higher education – but that’s not this article.) Not only does Sheila get the age of our founding document embarrassingly wrong – but what exactly is unconstitutional about passing a law requiring the President to faithfully execute his responsibilities as outlined under the Constitution? I agree the law is mildly redundant… But, c’mon: What else is Congress supposed to do when a President changes laws without their consent, and judges refuse to give Congress “standing” to take him to court?

“That’s what the opportunity of Democracy is all about” she explains. Of course, we’re not a Democracy. And maybe, if she had ever read that “400 year old” document she’s referring to, she would have known that. But, I guess we’re expecting too much when we ask our elected leaders to understand rudimentary 8th grade history.

Her outrage at the bill itself is almost as ridiculous as her less-than-copious grasp of American History. After all, imagine the Democrat outrage if President Mitt Romney was unilaterally altering the Healthcare law with use of his “pen and phone”… Do you think there might be an angry liberal or two on Capitol Hill?

Of course, as I said, this isn’t an article about the codification of what the Constitution already states... It’s about Jackson’s brilliant aversion to intelligent thought. Her monumental ignorance of our government, founding document, and general lack of common sense, however, is not exclusive. Other “leaders” have shown a similar lack of intellectual-horsepower… For example, Democrat Hank Johnson once expressed concern that the island of Guam was in danger of capsizing. Harry Reid has argued that our compulsory tax system is “voluntary”. (Maybe history, Physics, and English classes should be mandatory for US Congressmen?)

Which raises the bigger question: Is this really the best we have to offer? I have to imagine that America is capable of electing leaders who do not display such unfathomable ignorance. Heck, can’t we at least elect representatives who have a peripheral relationship to the real world?

By the way, Sheila, the Constitution turns 227 years old, this year. I’ll send a copy of the manuscript to your office at 2160 Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC 20515. Flip through it. You’d be surprised how much guidance our nation’s instruction manual has to offer.