Constitution Worship?

I just don't get crap like this:

too many Americans have begun to turn admiration for the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution into a form of worship, and that this is unfortunate.

"Worship?" Seriously?

Yes, the Constituion is an incredibly flawed document. Much of what it says is bad policy, and in many cases it has cleared failed for lack of clarity. But it is the law. The Declaration of Independence is nice (I love it actually) and instructive but it doesn't mean anything in terms of making rules or laws. It's a resolution. The Constitution is a statute.

While many laws are stupid and repugnant, and tell people what can't or must do, the Constitution works to limit government, which -sadly - most people have forgotten is the flipside of the "free society" coin. That is, you can't really be free while you have an unlimited government with unlimited powers and authorities, can you? Look at the Document. Unlike most laws: it says almost nothing about how people are to act or what people are required to do. But it says a boat-load on what government can't do and what it is required to provide.
So pointing out the relevance of this document to everything the government does is simply acknowledging a fact. That's not worship. You don't need to worship gravity to recognize the fact that you shouldn't talk on your cell phone while using a urinal at a bar (cuz, ya know, the whole holding-your-phone-with-your-shoulder trick really doesn't work, and there's no way your sticking your hand in a urinal to get your phone back even if it is brand new...).

In fact, we probably could use more "worship" of the Constitution these days. Almost every single person in all of America views the Constitution as something so flexible as to be meaningless. Liberals think the "Congress shall make no law..." language of the first Amendment means Congress can make tons of laws and set up an entire regulatory regime on those exact topics, as long as the law is fucking awesome and helpful enough! Meanwhile, to those folks, the Fourteenth Amendment clearly requires allowing gays to marry. And, Conservatives think the Second Amendment is so robust as to almost mandate everyone carry a gun at all times, but that the mere mention of "9-11" negates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments which appear on the same page. (Granted this is a bit of an oversimplification, but if you've never heard a person champion the Constitution as ground to support their favorite cause, and brush it aside dismissively to negate it's questionable directives then you've never talked much politics with anyone.)

And honeslty, the Tea Partiers are a strange group to highlight here because they are perhaps the best example of the Constitutional selectiveness I just described. It's a pathology that pervades American politics. When our own leaders recognize their lack of fidelity to the Document, then our problem is clearly NOT too much worship.

Thinking that anything the Constituion says is obviously wise and correct in all respects, or should never be questioned (ever!) is worship. Thinking that the Constition governs, and must be followed and adhered to, and that when it's crappy and inconvenient then we should talk about what the problem is and consider changing it through proper procedures but continue to follow it up until that change happens, is just freedom loving patriotism as far as I'm concerned.

"Worship" connotes the notion of faith. No one should have "faith" in the Constituion. It exists whether you believe in it or not.

2018: Where Were These Liberal Critics When Obama was President? Oh Right, They Were Cheerleading

I am increasingly, desperately frustrated by the pervasive rationale perhaps best exemplified in this piece. This sort of "sure, I can't really name many things the Obama adminsitration has done (notice how the author cites 'the stimulus package' and 'the stimulus bill' as two completely different things) and I can't deny that they've been awful in some areas (like even worse than Bush/Cheney on civil liberties) but quit your complaining!" I suppose this brand of thinking will become more popualr as we approach a mid-term election that's one part a referendum on the Obama administration so far, and the other a question of how "crazy" and "scary" the Republicans are. But it's not just commentators like that author, even normal folks seem to be reading from the same script when it comes to sticking up for Obama: “Well at least he’s not Bush;” “You have to give him more time;” “Who else are you gonna vote for, Palin?” “He’s in a tough spot.” Etc.

If people want to deploy these arguments – rationalizations really – as why they feel compelled to vote for Democrats then that’s one thing. I certainly understand, on a human level, the fear people have of candidates like Palin, or O’Donnel, or hell even John Boehner, and, though I think it’s a strategically poor decision, it’s not unreasonable to vote against your fears. But these arguments are not actual defenses of Obama or Democrats (at least not any more than references to Ike Turner or Scott Peterson are defenses of one’s alcoholic, compulsive gambling, emotionally-distant husband). I'm of the view that you can do what you have to on election day, but the rest of the time we should be holding our leaders accountable and honestly talking about their actions.

However, some might say these issues are related, that criticizing Obama up until election day drives independents away, or lowers the “enthusiasm” of the base, or encourages would-be voters to stay home, and then the crazies take power. This may in practice be true, but the alternative is even worse: you're setting yourself up to be a giant hypocrite.

Nowhere is this alternative better demonstrated than with the Tea Party. The Tea Party is already pretty suspect because the whack-jobs that lead it, but the question of where exactly was this group dedicated to smaller government and less government spending during the Bush Administration, when spending and government excess exploded in a massive mushroom cloud, is so legitimate as to be obvious. Many people (from your averag voter, to political commentators) have used this glaring issue to describe the Tea Partiers as political opportunists, giant hypocrites and even racists (because they only get mad when a black man is President).

Whatever one might say about the accusations of racism, the one of “hypocrite” is impossible to deny, and the Tea Party movement suffers because of this. People can vote out of fear, or because Obama is handsome and smooth-talking, but ultimately, most people care about actual issues. Keeping Democrats in power isn’t the goal itself, it’s a means to achieve the end of, say, gay equality or a fairer financial system. But people do those issues a disservice if they wait to care about them (at least outwardly) only when a leader or party they don’t support is in power. That is the essence of hypocrisy, and if Sarah Palin does come to power, her supporters will be quick to label the suddenly vocal defenders of gay marriage and civil liberties as … sexist. And they’ll have a point.