Someone rush a copy of the Constitution over to Politico’s newsroom, and make sure reporter Reid Epstein reads Article V, which specifies how to amend the Constitution.
Pitched with a snarky tweet, “The GOP presidential candidates all love the Constitution, except the parts they want to change,” this Politico article tries to make Republican presidential candidates look hypocritical for simultaneously (1) calling on Congress and the President to operate within the confines of the Constitution, and (2) invoke Article V of the Constitution to propose amendments.
Here’s the heart of Epstein’s case:
This article embodies two maladies of the mainstream media that Ramesh Ponnuru pointed out on another occasion also afflicts the Left: (1) they don’t really understand conservative arguments; and (2) they don’t really understand the Constitution.
The article’s premise is not only false, it’s so laughably a caricature of GOP candidates you would be forgiven if you thought it was coming from the mouth of Paul Begala or Jay Carney:
You know what Politico reporter Epstein failed to include in his 1,200-word opus? A single quote from a single Republican candidate to the effect that the Constitution is “perfect” or that it shouldn’t be “interpreted.” I’m not saying no conservatives believe in a divinely ordained and perfect Constitution. I’m saying Epstein never actually establishes these candidates do.
What I know Michele Bachmann, at least, thinks, is that the Constitution is the source of authority for the federal government, and that it is illegitimate for Congress to do things (such as outlaw our lightbulbs or force us to buy health insurance) that the Constitution doesn’t explicitly authorize Congress to do.
The second leg of conservative constitutionalism is this: Courts shouldn’t make law.
Ramesh Ponnuru put it well in his article addressing the same silly argument Epstein makes:
Are many conservatives inconsistent in their view of the Court’s proper role? Sure. Are many conservatives too eager to propose constitutional amendments? Maybe. But is there anything inconsistent about believing that the Constitution — as opposed to congressional or judicial fiat — is the law of the land and believing that the Constitution needs to be changed? Not at all.
