Tired of "politically correct?" Want an editorial cartoon that is quick to call out the bumblings of U.S. politics and cuts slack to no one? Pulitzer-Prize winner Ben Sargent is paying attention and making Washington have second thoughts about that little thing called the First Amendment.
© The Austin American-Statesman - All Rights Reserved.
Steve Sack by Steve Sack
Drew Sheneman by Drew Sheneman
Comments (41) (Please sign in to comment)
freeholder1 said, over 2 years ago
Rewrites are needed, obviously. But be fair: no taxes, no guns, no free speech, no states rights no…
Oh, sorry, I forgot, no fair.
Dudley Didereaux said, over 2 years ago
The real problem is that we have two presidents in a row that are playing with Congress in a ‘See Who Can Shred the Constitution Fastest’ contest.
Just the Patriot Act alone makes Cheny/Bush-Obama and the past 10 years Congress’s the worst enemies of the Constitution so far in American history.
jkshaw said, over 2 years ago
Amen, fennec.
Jade
said, over 2 years ago
The part that says citizens must be treated equally under the law?
“Well… except for the citizens we don’t like…”
jack75287 said, over 2 years ago
Sorry that is not what the Tea Party is all about. Truth is the deficit and power in central government has been building for a long time. Sorry it came up now.
Jade
said, over 2 years ago
^ Where were these guys 5 years ago?
dtroutma
said, over 2 years ago
What gets me are the people claiming “return to the Constitution” AND demanding it include “the Federalist Papers”, and the screamers have obviously read neither. The “Federalist Papers” are NOT in the Constitution. We don’t have a king. We only had two “Federalist” presidents (Washington/Adams), and there were many discussions about what would go into the Constitution. Minimalists today try to insist the role of the national government is extremely limited, while claiming “Federalist” backing for it- duh!! It’s really good when Tea party folks claim Jefferson’s quotes -taken out of context–make him a Federalist— right.
wbr said, over 2 years ago
^^ voting gop out of control of congress – panel 1 read 10 adm
pirate227 said, over 2 years ago
Sargent has done an excellent job of capturing the stupidity of the Teabaggers.
DjGuardian said, over 2 years ago
I don’t know Dudley, the passage of ObamaCare, especially in the way it was done, was AT LEAST as bad as the Patriot Act.
I would be interested in seeing how either can be defending within the Constitution… and then the methodology of passing the laws be defended.
And I’m not sure who has asked for the inclusion of the Federalist Papers as Constitutional law… probably someone with a law background trying to submit discussions of the Constitution as evidence of proper practice, or at least historical understanding.
I agree, it should NOT be treated as the Constitution, nor as an authority. However, it is a good reference tool that should, like some others, be used if there is ever a debate about the meaning of the Constitution in a historical framework.
But I haven’t heard anyone of any authority make your claim dtroutma. Can you provide anyone from the Republican party or leading Conservative who has recommended such?
But also remember that Obama did stipulate that he hold the Federalist Papers in high regard in terms of understanding the Constitution. I am not aware, however, that he desired to make them an official authoritative government document. It’s just not his style.
DjGuardian said, over 2 years ago
And Pirate… he has done a poor job of depicting actual tea party folk. Maybe he has depicted the slanderous view of liberals and leftists who just hate tea party people because they have a divergent, if not opposite, view as their own.
At best, some of the most ignorant few might fit only the general assertion (ignorance). But it’s not a group of folk I’d like to debate (apart from certain civility) for fear of being made foolish by laymen, or assuming laymen natures to highly intelligent people. At least with most other groups I know where I stand and what I’m getting into.
rjwalker918 said, over 2 years ago
The Federalist Papers (and founding Fathers) are often misrepresented as presenting one unified view of what the constitution is supposed to mean and the way in which it is to be read.
In the Federalist Paper No. 1, Alexander Hamilton wrote:
“An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized.”
Hamilton also wrote, in Federalist Paper 78: “By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like.”
In Federalist 25 he wrote “Wise politicians will be cautious about fettering the government with restrictions that cannot be observed….”
When speaking of a “limited government,”
I just discussed this in my blog at http://rjw-progressive.blogspot.com/2011/01/what-limited-government-means.html
Rockngolfer said, over 2 years ago
I keep hearing about guns. Now you can carry a firearm in a National Park. We have MORE guns. Those gun stores, and Republicans that fueled the myth that Obama was against guns have made, um, a killing. I got mine before.
disgustedtaxpayer said, over 2 years ago
members of the various tea parties are no more ignorant of the US Constitution than any other segment of American society. Sargent’s bias and discrimination is obvious.
I will be so happy to have lived long enough to hopefully see the wicked witch of the west hand over the House gavel to the new Speaker Mr. Boehner, who is already doing reforms that I like…scheduling a reading of the Constitution which each member of Congress and the Executive that take office have sworn to uphold and defend, before they take up the business of the New House.
Another reform is to require new spending bills show the constitutional authority for the federal government to do so.
I am hopeful that in spite of snares and brickbats used by liberal congresspersons and the MSM, Americans will see a better and more constitutional operation in Congress.
dtroutma
said, over 2 years ago
DjG–quite a few “Tea party” folks I’ve seen in person, as well as many of their letters to editors, commentaries, and articles, have tried to refer to the Federalist Papers, AS LAW, but never seem to accurately quote Madison or Hamilton, even from those same papers.
dt: While our populace IS really ignorant of many issues, I’d say it is the MISinterpretation of documents that sets the “Tea party” apart. Just like them denying they called themselves “teabaggers” before they found out the “other ” interpretation.
Rock, I have a fair number of guns, know how to use them, and as a former NPS Ranger, was really disgusted when Coburn, a doctor(not obviously a good one) inserted the “earmark” to allow LOADED AND OPENLY CARRIED OR CONCEALED guns in National Parks and other formerly “regulated” areas. There have already been several “Incidents” that say we are now LESS SAFE in those parks than before. (starting at Lava Beds in northern Calif.)
The Klamath County D. A. was just pointing out on the news tonight that deadly force against a burglar IN YOUR HOUSE was “okay”, but he recommended only for folks who “know how to use guns”. Which again brings up the distortion of folks “anti-Obama”, who totally lose it in any discussion relevant to law or the Constitution.
Neither “God”, nor “mulatto” are mentioned in the Constitution, but you wouldn’t believe it, judging from “Tea party” or other extreme groups.