Dedicated to Mr. Anonymous

Posted by JHW22

Since our loyal watcher, Mr. Anonymous, seems to enjoy the topic of hypocrisy, this post is for him.

I was watching Rachel Maddow interview Joe "Constitution Ninja" Miller regarding the very Constitution he so ardently defends and protects and seems to know better than anyone else (because he's a lawyer or because he's a Conservative -- I'm not sure which is more qualifying these days).

MADDOW: Do you think there should be a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?

MILLER: That’s up to the people. You’ve got a three-quarters vote, ratified, I’d vote for it.

MADDOW: You would vote for it?

MILLER: Yeah, I would. But it would require an amendment to the Constitution.

Now, I am no Constitutional scholar, attorney, or Conservative (who appear to be the only people who are allowed to comment on the Constitution these days) but I am pretty sure there is some inherent hypocrisy when Joe "Amendments are Bull Crap" Miller thinks stuff like this:

He called the idea of a living, changing Constitution “bullcrap,” and said he would support an amendment for term limits as well as an amendment repealing the 17th Amendment, which allows for the direct election of senators by the public rather than by state legislatures.

I am hoping Mr. Anonymous checks in and explains this contradiction in beliefs that it is okay to change the Constitution for some but not for others. You'd think that a staunch defender of the original writing of the Constitution, like Joe "Written in Cement" Miller would NOT want to alter it to limit the rights of some considering the original said something about securing "Blessings of Liberty" (but what's the significance of a preamble anyway, right?) Apparently, Joe "Except for You" Miller thinks it's okay to restrict the rights of teh gays via an amendment but I guess all the other amendments, written post-Founders, should be stripped or something?

I will be a catalyst to move those in Congress to make the tough, principled decisions needed to bring Washington back to the limited role anticipated by our Founders. We must act now.

I can totally see how banning marriage for 10%+ of the public is bringing back a limited role of government. It makes total sense -- in someone's alternate interpretation of the supposed document that is not living or open to anyone's interpretation but his.

I tend to agree with the man who wrote the Alaska State Constitution, Vic Fisher, when he said:

I would think a Yale Law School graduate would understand that a Constitution is a framework -- a foundation for the future.

In some ways, Joe "Keeping it Real" Miller thinks that the document is living and is adaptable depending on the mood of the country. In other ways he thinks it's meant to be stuck in the day when not everyone had a say in how that document could be adapted. Therein lies the hypocrisy. I do hope Mr. Anonymous will shed some light on this issue. I hope he uses original thought, however. I'd hate to read the same talking points I could find by a simple Google search.