Mike DeWine: Screw the Constitution

While I’m still not sure whether George Bush actually stated that the Constitution is “just a goddamned piece of paper,” it seems that Ohio Senator Mike DeWine did so on Fox News tonight. The quote in question referred to the NSA wiretapping program and is provided by ThinkProgress (emphasis added):

You know, there’s been some controversy about whether or not this program is legal or is not legal. I think we need to get beyond that. And the vast majority of American people believe these calls need to be listened to. But we don’t want to have any kind of debate about whether it’s constitutional or not constitutional. So I think we need to put that beyond us.

While Republicans used to play lip service to their favorite portions of it, it’s starting to look like there is a GOP-wide consensus for an absolute disregard of all portions of the Constitution.

24 Comments
  1. > “But we don’t want to have any kind of debate about whether it’s constitutional or not constitutional.”

    Ummm, isn’t that, like, exactly what we’re supposed to be debating?

  2. “starting” to look? When is everyone going to realize that the GOP is and always has been the brownshirt despot party? Duh!

    DeWine is right, though. The American people don’t want to have any real, meaningful debate on the Constitution. Otherwise there would only be one Congressman remaining in office. Americans like largesse of the public treasury and statism. Americans MUST get the government that they deserve and ask for and they are (going to be) getting it! GOOD!

    Americans have no incentive for limited government. It would be counter productive and against their present interest. Right now, limited govt. is a winning proposition in the long haul. Why forgo unlimited present consumption for limited future consumption? Don’t worry – this is unsustainable and America will have to produce for current consumption while it pays for the (recent) past and present’s excesses.

    If it weren’t immoral, I would be pushing for MORE welfare, spending and inflation right now to hasten things!

  3. The U.S. Government routinely intercepts international calls and check for key words that catch their attention. In this way, they were able to uncover a terrorist plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge. There was no way they could have gotten a warrant to get this information. As long as the U.S. Government insists on waging this meddling foreign policy, we will be faced with terrorist attacks. It seems that our government’s policy puts us in a position where in order to protect our citizens, it has to violate the Constitution.

  4. How do we know the government didn’t just make up this Brooklyn Bridge story to promote their agenda?

    In the 1960’s the government planed terrorism in Florida only to justify a war with Cuba in what is known as the Northwoods Memo. The plan was from the Joint Chiefs of Staff and was thrown out by top members of the Kennedy administration.

    It is time we learn the truth about 9/11 and stop accepting the White House talking points as the truth.

  5. I agree. Screw the constitution, it has no authority anyway. The government reveals its true form moreso every day:

    It is a gang of thugs, liars, and thieves that does whatever it wants.

    This gang needs to be resisted.

  6. Let’s play “reductio ad absurdam”. Dude says that the Constitution is “just a [swearing elided] piece of paper”. Dude’s office is constitutionally defined. Does that mean that Dude isn’t going to go back to washington? Don’t I wish!

  7. If the Reps are the “brownshirt despot party”… what does that make the Dems? The “cradle-to-grave health care and politically-correct thought police party”?

    Now, more than ever, these two gangs of idiots points out the need for more competition. Hell, I even cheer when Green Party candidates “steal” votes from Dems, and wish well for the Constitution Party. The more, the merrier.

    The two-party-only types present us with a “choice” between a slowly-boiling pot of water, and a deep-fat fryer. I’ll take Option #3, please.

  8. Well, I don’t like the strategy of relying on the fact that something exists in the Constitution to defend a position. The Constitution is arbitrary. It just happens to be pretty libertarian. But a stronger defense of a position lies in explaining how that position maximizes liberty.

    The Constitution is and has been flawed with respect to liberty (the 3/5th slave rule, Prohibition), so we shouldn’t use it to defend libertarian positions. We should use libertarian reasoning and philosophy (the idea that “everybody can do whatever they want as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody else”) to explain those positions.

  9. DD – years ago, before I left the GOP, most Republicans I knew (including some of the most nationally prominent ones) at least paid lip service to the Constitution. Others, while misguided on some issues, actually attempted to adhere to their perception of it.

    There is a difference some 10-15 years later — this being the new total disregard for it. At least when lip service was paid, one could argue the constitutionality of issues. And those who were true, albeit misguided, believers could often be persuaded to a more libertarian or constitutional point-of-view on an issue.

    Today, with statements like DeWine’s and the one Bush allegedly made, such arguments can’t even be persued.

  10. Yeah, I hear ya. But it was just lip service. I could and should write a book about the Conservative ideology. It’s a really wicked and confusing (and confused) system of beliefs that are totally arbitrary. In a moral and logical sense it is no different at all then modern liberalism. There is something to be said of people who are philosophically inconsistent or arbitrary. I say they need to be avoided like the plague because they can’t be relied upon or trusted. This is a prime reason why principle is so much more important than pragmatism, in particular regard to the LP. The dangerous thing about the LP is the name itself! Unprincipled conservative types could take over (see Movemiento Libertario) and then give libertarianism a bad name. In fact they already do by calling Boehner and Bill O’Reilly libertarian! The GOP gives free trade and privtization, et al a bad name. Are you beginning to understand me now?

  11. “Americans have no incentive for limited government. It would be counter productive and against their present interest. Right now, limited govt. is a winning proposition in the long haul. Why forgo unlimited present consumption for limited future consumption? Don’t worry – this is unsustainable and America will have to produce for current consumption while it pays for the (recent) past and present’s excesses.”

    Excellent analysis! This one of the huge problems with government today, and it is one of the largest problems of democracy. Everybody just wants to vote themselves favors at the expense of everybody else.

  12. We should respect the constitution because we respect the rule of law. Our nation’s fathers drew up our constitution the way they did because they wanted to protect liberty. They wanted checks and balances to protect the rights of minorities and to avoid mob rule. The danger that we are facing now is that the mob, fearful of terrorism, will allow a dictatorship to be established.

  13. Others, while misguided on some issues, actually attempted to adhere to their perception of it.

    Therein lies a problem… if they can not read and understand ‘simple’ english and think that it *requires* interpreting then perhaps they should be terminated!

    Have you fired a politician lately!?

  14. OT – they’ve been spoonfed so much through the years. My point is that at one time, that at least made the attempt to do what they thought was inline with the contract which binds goverment and the people.

    It is my feeling that the right (as evidenced by statements such as this) no longer even makes the attempt.

    In my opinion, this makes the contract totally null and void.

  15. So there is no need for a pink slip then… they have breached the contract that enables them to be employees of the state…

    Now… how many boxes do we need to send to the hill!? ;-)

  16. Americans MUST get the government that they deserve and ask for and they are (going to be) getting it! GOOD!

    Unfortunately, so we will any of the rest of us in the land mass their fascist regime claims as their protection racket gang turf, whether we like it or not.

  17. Americans have no incentive for limited government.

    That would be like limited cancer. There’s only one type of government: malignant.

  18. There’s only one type of government: malignant.

    I meant to say only one type of forcible government (or state).

  19. There was no way they could have gotten a warrant to get this information.

    This is regime black propaganda. There was probably no such foiled plot, and even if there had been, retroactive FISA court warrants are granted automatically.

    Also, even if true: would this also justify monitoring all the people all the time, including in their own homes, whether they like it or not? After all, if “we” did, maybe it would prevent or help solve crimes as well as terrorism.

    Is privacy worth anything?

  20. Well said Paulie, but not the full story… There is a difference between government and The State. We foolishly achieve government through means of The State. And thus, The State is our government. The State is ALWAYS total. I’m being general when I say “limited government” in this context. Within this discussion whether “limited government” means that or a lack of State government is left up to the reader to understand. I just don’t feel that it is necessary for you to go on a long winded explanation of why the idea of having a limited State government is foley.

    Proverbs 26:11 – As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool returns to his folly.