George Will's Declaration of Subjugation
11/01/05 10:01 AM
Bless
George Will's little heart. In his colum
he
wrote:
"This is the debate the country has needed for several generations: Should the Constitution be treated as so plastic, so changeable that it enables justices to reach whatever social outcomes -- "results" -- they, like the result-oriented senators who confirm them, consider desirable? If so, in what sense does the Constitution still constitute the nation?"
The honest question is: Should the Constitution be read so broadly by conservatives that it allows the State to legislate any and every aspect of our lives? Should the State tell us who we can make love to, in what positions we can make love to them? Should it tell women when they must talk to their husbands? Should the State tell individuals and their qualified doctors how best to relieve that individual's suffering? Should it tell women what they must do with their bodies?
Will has been a professional hyprocrite for decades. He knows that Alito is an activist conservative who will overturn Congressional legislation on a dime in order to further the "social outcomes" he advocates. However, to Will and his racist, homophobic, woman-hating ilk, it's only a "social outcome" when it advances the rights and freedoms of women or minorities. It's "strict construction" when it restricts our rights and freedoms. To him--to them--the Constitution is a racist document that regards women with contempt. And frankly, it may well be. God knows that was the mindset of the men who drafted it. The question is, has America progressed? Do we continue to seek "a more perfect union," or assume the one that held chattel slavery and females-as-property as norms achieved a Divine perfection? Does America progress, or does it not?
That is the choice we have. Do we fight for a more perfect union, or acquiesce to the lie that the one that kept more than half the population in chains was as good as it gets?
Thanks to those like George Will, we know the conservatives' answer.
"This is the debate the country has needed for several generations: Should the Constitution be treated as so plastic, so changeable that it enables justices to reach whatever social outcomes -- "results" -- they, like the result-oriented senators who confirm them, consider desirable? If so, in what sense does the Constitution still constitute the nation?"
The honest question is: Should the Constitution be read so broadly by conservatives that it allows the State to legislate any and every aspect of our lives? Should the State tell us who we can make love to, in what positions we can make love to them? Should it tell women when they must talk to their husbands? Should the State tell individuals and their qualified doctors how best to relieve that individual's suffering? Should it tell women what they must do with their bodies?
Will has been a professional hyprocrite for decades. He knows that Alito is an activist conservative who will overturn Congressional legislation on a dime in order to further the "social outcomes" he advocates. However, to Will and his racist, homophobic, woman-hating ilk, it's only a "social outcome" when it advances the rights and freedoms of women or minorities. It's "strict construction" when it restricts our rights and freedoms. To him--to them--the Constitution is a racist document that regards women with contempt. And frankly, it may well be. God knows that was the mindset of the men who drafted it. The question is, has America progressed? Do we continue to seek "a more perfect union," or assume the one that held chattel slavery and females-as-property as norms achieved a Divine perfection? Does America progress, or does it not?
That is the choice we have. Do we fight for a more perfect union, or acquiesce to the lie that the one that kept more than half the population in chains was as good as it gets?
Thanks to those like George Will, we know the conservatives' answer.