Via Yglesias, Dave Weigel takes a look at the new Maine GOP platform, which ain’t exactly Olympia Snowe all over. But neither of them mentions how the authors of this document take the text of the Preamble to the Constitution and wrench it around in ways contrary to an originalist reading of the text. Example: in order “to insure Domestic tranquility”, the Maine GOP prescribes “a. Promote family values. i. marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. ii. Parents, not government, are responsible for making decisions in the best interest of their children, whether disciplinary, educational, or medical. iii. We recognize the sanctity of life, which includes the unborn.”
Here I was, thinking the Framers were worried about Shays’ Rebellion-type stuff.
{ 33 comments }
Hidari 05.12.10 at 7:51 am
The document also promises that the GOP (in line, presumably, with the intentions of the Founding Fathers) will return to the principles of Austrian economics (principles which, presumably, the United States was founded on. Hence the name ‘Austrian Economics’)
alex 05.12.10 at 8:33 am
I liked the bit about ‘freedom of religion’ NOT being ‘freedom from religion’. Really classy. Asswipes.
ajay 05.12.10 at 8:59 am
Outstanding. Domestic tranquillity obviously means a quiet home life. I’m surprised they don’t also include volume limits on stereo systems.
Hattip 05.12.10 at 10:14 am
Yes, and those people would be Marxists (read Democrats). You are projecting your contempt for the Constitution onto those that would see it upheld.
How depraved you are. There is nothing in that document that is not strictly inline with American political traditions. You people have gone so far over the edge that you think the normal and the reasonable is depraved and unreasoanable. You are projecting. It is you that are depraved. You call attempts to roll back federal tyranny “authoritarian”. You try to trivialize those whole want to stop this Marxist onslaught against our Republic.
What ignorant and superficial people you truly are.
Keep smirking. You will not be laughing come Nov. You have seriously misjudged the American people.
James Wimberley 05.12.10 at 10:14 am
Volume limits on portable stereo systems, aka ghetto blasters: a winner.
James Wimberley 05.12.10 at 10:24 am
And what have they got specifically against the Law of the Sea Treaty, supported for obvious reasons by the Pentagon?
rea 05.12.10 at 11:54 am
what have they got specifically against the Law of the Sea Treaty
It would be just fine, if it didn’t involve icky foreigners.
Anderson 05.12.10 at 12:01 pm
Hidari FTW on the very first comment.
Bill Gardner 05.12.10 at 12:10 pm
Really? I thought it was a kind of squishy RINO platform. Nothing about teaching the Consitutional basis of God’s creation of the universe.
scathew 05.12.10 at 1:24 pm
People decide the policy then fit the “facts” around them as they were. Unfortunately they probably actually believe what they’re spewing even though as you note, it’s insane.
ajay 05.12.10 at 1:35 pm
what have they got specifically against the Law of the Sea Treaty
They think it will allow the UN to levy taxes directly, thus starting it on its road to becoming an unaccountable One World Government, aka the Ten-Headed Beast Arising Out Of The Sea from the Revelation of St. John.
Red 05.12.10 at 2:51 pm
And, as we all know, the Maine GOP is the “saner” wing of the party. Yes, hats off to Hidari for that one.
mollymooly 05.12.10 at 3:26 pm
If you are soliciting examples of deliberate misconstrual of Foundation Documents, I offer “cherishing all of the children of the nation equally”, from the 1916 Proclamation, interpreted as referring to children’s rights.
If that were so, it would cast in a chilling light the other mentions of children: “summons her children to her flag”, “supported by her exiled children in America”, and “the readiness of its children to sacrifice themselves for the common good”.
Ginger Yellow 05.12.10 at 4:40 pm
In order to promote domestic tranquility, the Maine GOP hereby proposes to ensure that every home has one of those air freshener plug things.
chris y 05.12.10 at 4:51 pm
In order to promote domestic tranquility, the Maine GOP hereby proposes to ensure that every home has one of those air freshener plug things.
That would cause domestic insurgency in our house; my wife’s allergic to those things.
pv 05.12.10 at 5:05 pm
The meaning of the original text is crystal clear: we must build homes on the moon. We must ensure that the Sea of Tranquility is made domestic.
Jake 05.12.10 at 5:20 pm
I’m surprised they didn’t put the anti-gay-marriage stuff under “to form a more perfect union.”
Dan in Euroland 05.12.10 at 5:56 pm
Well to play devil’s advocate:
Technically they are referring both to the national constitution and the State constitution of Maine.
a. Promote family values. i. marriage is an institution between a man and a woman.
Under many state law at the time of the founding sodomy and other sexual acts were expressly prohibited. So that seems to cut against gay marriage. Certainly state gov’ts (at least prior to the 14th amendment) would have the power to curtail such behavior since the Fed constitution would not apply.
ii. Parents, not government, are responsible for making decisions in the best interest of their children, whether disciplinary, educational, or medical.
From an originalist standpoint the federal constitution was a restriction on the power of the federal gov’t through the doctrine of enumerated powers. So you are right parental rights are not expressed in the Federal constitution. But again they refer to their state constitution.
I don’t know the history of the maine state constitution nor how it applies to parental rights in this case. I am guessing that parents did have all these rights and responsibilities at the time of the founding of maine and the ratification of their constitution. I also don’t see how subsequent amendments to the Federal Con would change these rights and responsibilities. If anything it strikes me that the 14th amendment would further protect parents on some of these issues.
iii. We recognize the sanctity of life, which includes the unborn.
Well this will really hinge on what sort of originalism they are spouting. Balkin argues that original meaning originalism would allow abortion. But original expected application originalism would not. Judging from the framer’s own writings, I think they would advocate an original expected applications originalism. (That is a highly contentious claim on my part.)
In short once you consider that they are referring to the Maine Constitution, then many of their ideas, as far as originalism is concerned, are not too far out there. However I am speaking only to the merits of originalist understanding and not to the merits of the underlying doctrines or substantive policy.
ben 05.12.10 at 8:09 pm
Judging from the framer’s own writings, I think they would advocate an original expected applications originalism
When you judge by the framers’ own writings, are you using an original meaning, or original expected application, hermeneutic strategy?
Substance McGravitas 05.12.10 at 8:20 pm
You can’t fool me. It’s originals all the way down.
Keith 05.12.10 at 8:30 pm
ii. Parents, not government, are responsible for making decisions in the best interest of their children, whether disciplinary, educational, or medical.
From an originalist standpoint the federal constitution was a restriction on the power of the federal gov’t through the doctrine of enumerated powers. So you are right parental rights are not expressed in the Federal constitution. But again they refer to their state constitution.
You’re way over-thinking this one: it’s all about the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the Maine GOP (and probably the national GOP as well) are opposed to the US signing, as they think it means Blue Hats will swarm in and stop Righteous Christian Parents from spanking their children with rods (no bigger ’round than the width of a thumb, naturally). So you get the conservative twofer with this one: the good old fashioned anti-UN/OWG boogieman and the GOP coming out as objectively pro-child abuse.
kid bitzer 05.12.10 at 8:37 pm
“That would cause domestic insurgency in our house; my wife’s allergic to those things.”
anyone who is going to pun on the two senses of “domestic” must quote the great elbridge gerry, later famous for gerrymandering:
“a standing army is like a standing member. it’s an excellent assurance of domestic tranquility, but a dangerous temptation to foreign adventure.”
Dan in Euroland 05.12.10 at 9:24 pm
You’re way over-thinking this one: it’s all about the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the Maine GOP (and probably the national GOP as well) are opposed to the US signing, as they think it means Blue Hats will swarm in and stop Righteous Christian Parents from spanking their children with rods (no bigger ‘round than the width of a thumb, naturally). So you get the conservative twofer with this one: the good old fashioned anti-UN/OWG boogieman and the GOP coming out as objectively pro-child abuse.
Exactly what am I over thinking? Okay maybe they are paranoid about the UN. So? Does that mean that they are butchering an* original understanding of the Federal Constitution, as Holbo is implying?
My point is that Holbo was too fast on the trigger in claiming that these provisions do not have any valid originalist content. If the State Constitution of Maine originally protected these rights, then they are entirely consistent with an originalist understanding of the Federal Constitution.
*I am using “an” because as pointed out in another thread originalism is not the interpretative salve many want it to be. But “an” is simply to imply that mainstream originalists would accept these arguments. Appeals to authority? Welcome to legal interpretation.
Keith 05.13.10 at 12:48 am
Dan in Euroland @23
These arguments are Originalist only in that that’s the pseudo-intellectual buzzword of choice used by the GOP to justify their ridiculous, dog whistle-laden platforms. Trying to find some philosophical ground on which these towers of nonsense won’t wobble and fall down is silly. They haven’t given it that much thought.
These are the same folk who think Obama is simultaneously a communist and a socialist, a fake Muslim, a terrorist symp, and both the craftiest black man to crawl from the ghettos of Hawaii and a prime example of the inferior black race. He’s all bogeymen wrapped up in one, and any justification is worth it if it means getting a chance at Tea Bagging him out of the White House. Rational arguments be damned.
Tim 05.13.10 at 2:08 pm
The interpretive slight-of-hand that flits between the various meanings of “domestic” is a long-standing hermeneutical strategy that Protestant fundamentalists have used in their interpretation of the Bible for over 100 years. It’s only natural that they would apply this to their interpretation of other texts, but it’s striking that other parts of the GOP coalition appear to have appropriated it as well.
skidmarx 05.13.10 at 2:33 pm
I was recently reading Bill Hicks’ take on the Fourth Amendment where he points out that if you read the whole thing it is clear that the individual right to bear arms outside of a well-regulated militia was not intended to be protected.
chris y 05.13.10 at 2:41 pm
I was recently reading Bill Hicks’ take on the Fourth Amendment where he points out that if you read the whole thing it is clear that the individual right to bear arms outside of a well-regulated militia was not intended to be protected.
That’s so obvious that one supposes nobody in the NRA can read English. It also stretches credulity that an assembly of 18th century landowners and successful merchants would have thought it was a good idea for every Tom, Dick and Harry to go about their normal business with a musket.
y81 05.13.10 at 3:23 pm
“18th century landowners and successful merchants”
I like that kind of vulgar Marxist originalism (sort of like Cuban Asian fusion cuisine), in which we interpret the Constitution to serve the interests of the ruling classes/owners of the means of production at the time of its adoption. But can the Constituion “grow” using this approach, so that it would now be interpreted to serve the interests of finance capital, say? Or are we forever in the hermeneutic straitjacket of protecting the interests of 18th century landowners and merchants?
Law review article, tenure at Harvard, Supreme Court seat–here I come!
ajay 05.13.10 at 3:35 pm
28: nice. “The original intent of the authors of the Constitution was clearly to protect the property and authority of a small number of rich white tax-evaders, therefore…”
JM 05.13.10 at 6:45 pm
I would say that #4 is potentially self-refuting. We have obviously overestimated at least one of the American people.
mds 05.13.10 at 7:39 pm
Well, it’s actually so obvious because the Fourth Amendment doesn’t have anything to do with gun ownership. :-P
But yes, many of these Constitution-loving right-wing patriots apparently actually hate the Constitution, with an exception made for the Tenth Amendment and the second clause of the Second Amendment. Suggesting that the first clause is actually somehow relevant smacks far too much of originalism for these folks. And even the Tenth gets pretty shaky when individual states legalize same-sex marriage or wider access to abortion.
skidmarx 05.14.10 at 12:28 pm
My bad, I should have said Second rather than Fourth.
Heur 05.14.10 at 1:21 pm
Eh, the Platform is structured in a cute way with each of the stated purposes in the Preamble as section headings, but the Platform does not appear intended to be a legal interpretation of those stated purposes. The use of the stated purposes as section headings seems to be a purely rhetorical device.
Comments on this entry are closed.