I have a friend who labels the Tea Party crazy fanantics. See, he thinks like our president that the US Constitution is just kind of a suggestion, easily changed and reinterpreted as desired. Those crazy tea party people think our constitution lays out what it means to be an American and needs to be adhered to. They are no better than the Muslim fanatics in Iran, they behead people because they follow their constitution and the koran to the letter. It’s all the same right?

Well, there isn’t anything in our constitution that prevents beheadings, that’s true. But that’s where the similarities end. Our constitution defines the the role and limitations of the Federal government, the seperations of power that act as checks and balances and the natural rights each of has as citizens that the goverment will not infringe or violate. Note that these are not rights granted by the government, but natural rights that the governement may not infringe. Most importantly it establishes the United States as a Republic whose Federal government may not expand farther than the constitution allows. All constitutions are not equal. Others are not written with natural rights as the center peice. Or, they are written with rights we simply do not agree with.

Our constitution leaves a great deal open, this is on purpose. I’ll use an current hot topic as an example. It doesnt define marriage as being between a man and a woman. Nor does it say refer to the bible for a definition. It lets the people and states decide. If Texas says it is and California says it isn’t, the constitution is fine with that. No matter which side of that issue you’re on you have to skew your reading of the constitution very very badly to get it to weigh in. The writers were pretty good, if they thought marrige was a federal issue, they would have mentioned it. The tea party says that if the Supreme Court was doing it’s job it would read the letter of the constitution, say does not apply, use the 10th Amendment recourse and deny to hear the case. Basically saying it’s fine with us since the constitution doesn’t apply, but refer to your particular state. My friend and Obama believe that the federal government is the final word on all things and must then weigh in, constitutional limitations and amendments be damned. 

See the difference? The Tea Party thinks regardless of their personal opinion on the issue that the Federal government has no place in the discussion. Each state would then decide if it’s allowable or not. If the two men live in a state in which it is not allowed they have the right to move to another. Certainly most tea party members will campaign in their state for it to be illegal, but understand they might have to move to another state if they lose and are that upset about it. Certainly my friend and Obama feel that their opinion must be enforced and the easiest way to do it is to control it from the central government, no need to deal with all those pesky states. Theirs is a benevolent dictatorship, why does the tea party resist?

Compare that with the situation in a place like Iran. If two men want to get married their case will be refered to the Supreme Council. That is the body that is sometimes compared with the SCOTUS. They determine if something is constitutional. They are also bound to the koran, which must superceed the constitution. And then the two men will be stoned to death based on the koran. Simple. (The liberals will gush over the tolerance of the Iranian government if they forego the death penalty in favor of lashes and years in prison)  The tea party is crazy because they think the federal government has limits and that most issues are states rights. My friend and Obama would be very comfortable in Iran since the federal governent is the final word on all things right? (Well, no, actually, only if they were the ones with the final word.) 

The Tea Party says the US Constitution does not apply unless it specifically says it does. My friend and Obama believe the Federal Government can do anything it wants unless the Constitution specifically says it can’t. The Tea Party says the rights defined in the constitution are natural rights, not to be infringed on or restricted by the government. My friend and Obama believe the bill of rights are the rights granted to you by the government, subject to review and restrictions.

I’ll take my tea and my constitution the same way, straight up, no sugar or cream, thanks.