This Republican tweet counted on people not having read the Constitution. Whoops

[babylonsister]

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/5/5/2095901/-Twitter-offers-House-Judiciary-Republicans-an-education-on-the-Constitution

This Republican tweet counted on people not having read the Constitution. Whoops
Laura Clawson for Daily Kos
Daily Kos Staff
Thursday May 05, 2022 · 11:30 AM EDT


Boy, did the Republicans of the House Judiciary Committee own the libs in the wake of the leak showing the Supreme Court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade.

“Still trying to find the word ‘abortion’ in the Constitution,” the committee Republicans tweeted. Quite the devastating argument ... if you’ve never read the Constitution.

Twitter users were quick to respond with a long, long list of other things that aren’t in the Constitution. Among them:

Woman or women
God, Jesus, Christ, Christian, or Bible
Marriage
Family or child
Filibuster
Nine. Or for that matter any specified number of Supreme Court justices.
Corporations or corporate personhood
Student loans
Police

The list goes on. Some users also pointed to places where the Constitution specifically said that it was not a full and complete list of all rights, starting with the entire Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

But that’s not all:

Link to tweet

Whether the House Judiciary Republicans were trying to get attention by making a completely ludicrous statement or were counting on their followers not knowing a damn thing about the Constitution—and both things are equally possible, as is some combination of the two—it’s nonetheless a telling attempt. Being completely dishonest is their only option here.

[GoCubsGo]

1. I like the replies that asked if Clarence Thomas is now 3/5 of a man.

[Farmer-Rick]

3. Clarence lying on his financial disclosure forms for 6 years

violates the Constitution.

From Article III of the US Constitution:

"The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour,"

Lying for 6 years about your spouse's income is Not good behaviour by anyone's standards.

[markie]

8. nothing to do with his race...

I don't consider him even half a man

[Farmer-Rick]

2. You know what else is Not in the Constitution?

That the Supreme Court has the authority to determine the constitutionality of legislation.

No where in the Constitution does it give the Supreme Court the authority to establish the Constitutionality of laws or legislation.

[Ocelot II]

4. The Supreme Court did that itself in Marbury v. Madison

on the theory, apparently, that somebody had to do it; and Congress shouldn't decide whether the laws it created itself were constitutional. Chief Justice Marshall pointed out that the Constitution places limits on the government's powers, and that those limits would be meaningless unless they were subject to judicial review (otherwise what would be the point of having a judicial branch as an equal part of the government?). Denying the supremacy of the Constitution over Congress's acts would mean that Congress would be omnipotent, since none of the laws it passed would ever be invalid.

So if the Supreme Court couldn't decide whether a statute passed by Congress was constitutional, who would be responsible for ensuring that it was? Or should the Constitution have no more authority than any act of Congress? How do you think this should be handled, and by whom?

[Farmer-Rick]

6. Well, that's kind of what our founding fathers wanted

They wanted a slight advantage to be with Congress not a Court. In some of their papers you can see that they thought of the Congress as the real democratic backbone of their new government. Because Senators and Representatives were voted on, where the Court was merely appointed.

Without constitutionality decisions, the judicial branch can still review laws and interpret them as written. They could still give decisions on states' disputes, diplomats and other very common legal processes and procedures. They would act like a court and not pass laws from the bench.

Constitutionality was for "We The People" to decide. That's why it's not designated in the Constitution. Through our votes the people would "hopefully" kick out anyone in congress who failed to follow the people's ideas about the Constitution.

By grabbing this power for themselves that's not in the Constitution, it makes the court, now 9 unelected judges, the final authority on everything legislative and executive. They hold back progress with this stolen power.and always side with the status quo of the rich. But it is a power totally Not given to them by the constitution.

[Ocelot II]

7. With corrupted Congresspeople, exclusionary gerrymandering

and other GOP fuckery regarding elections, I hardly see Congress as the entity that should be deciding whether its own laws are constitutional. Are Mitch McConnell and Marjorie Traitor Green going to be fair arbiters? They and their ilk keep getting re-elected, and they are the last people on earth that should be deciding whether any law is constitutional.

[Farmer-Rick]

10. Congress with its filibusters and gerrymandering has failed

There's no other way to say it. Congress has failed democracy. I think capitalism was just too much to stand up against.

I understand that as Congress stands today it would not be looked on as the backbone of democracy that's for sure. It has failed to meet the founders expectations in upholding democracy.

But the founders didn't know that. They were just trying to get away from the tyranny of a feudal system. They were creating a new form of government. Good try but capitalism crushed their vision.

But the intent as is made clear by the Constitution was not to give appointed judges the final say on legislation. Constitutionality was not given to the courts to decide.

[Thunderbeast]

5. So..assuming Roberts votes with the majority...

According to an originalist view of constitutional "personhood" the vote would be:

4 3/5 to overturn Roe.

1 to recognize prescident.

No women are recognized.
Thomas has a fractional vote due to pigment.

[hunter]

9. Thomas would not be allowed to vote due to his pigment.

But his presence would have been counted when laying out House districts, giving white males in slave states disproportionate representation in the House.

If these white men ever justified this atrocity at all it was by claiming they represented the best interests of their slaves, just as they represented the best interests of women, who were also considered property too feeble-minded to vote.