I Love You, You’re Perfect, Now Change

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Constitution_Pg1of4_AC.jpg">National Archives</a>/Wikimedia Commons

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

The conservative fetish with the Constitution came to a new apex on Thursday, when lawmakers read the document aloud on the House floor—not quite in its entirety—at the behest of the new Republican majority. But even as they lavished praise on the venerated document, some Republicans were quick to ennumerate the ways they’d love to change it—as well as radically reinterpret its provisions.

Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) was slated to read out one of the last sections of the Constitution, but he was bumped off after other lawmakers had already finished the job. (Most of the passages weren’t divvied up beforehand.) Had he had his druthers, however, Gingrey said he would like to have read the 14th Amendment—precisely because he wanted to change the way it was interpreted. The amendment, Gingrey reminded reporters, is about “birthright citizenship and anchor babies.” He added: “I would have liked to have read Section 5 of the 14th amendment—that gives us, the Congress, the right to make changes with regard to that.” Gingrey, in fact, has already become a co-sponsor of an anti-birthright citizenship bill, introduced on Wednesday by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), that opponents have quickly described as unconstitutional. (Other right-wing opponents of birthright citizenship have demanded full repeal of the 14th Amendment.)

Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) did get his chance to step up to the podium, and he got a choice selection at that: He read the 10th Amendment limiting federalism, which right-wing activists frequently seize upon in their battles against Big Government. But Goodlatte, too, had his qualms with the sacred text. After Thursday’s reading, the Virginia Republican told reporters he had introduced not one but two balanced budget amendments: one that originally passed the House under then-Speaker Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America—but failed in the Senate—and another that would reduce the percentage of US gross domestic product that the federal government is constitutionally allowed to spend.

The GOP has long blasted Democrats for trying to mess with the intentions of the founding fathers—a sentiment that helped motivate Thursday’s dramatic reading. But Republicans certainly don’t have any qualms about charging ahead to demand drastic changes they’d like to see in the way the Constitution has been interpreted—and in the document itself.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend