From a self-described “left-leaning Catholic writer,” the Washington Post’s associate editor political writer Melinda Henneberger, this is what passes for a defense of faith against the HHS mandate. In an MSNBC interview, Ms. Henneberger told Chris Matthews: “Maybe the founders were wrong to guarantee free exercise of religion in the First Amendment, but that is what they did and I don’t think we have to choose here.”
As the Blaze goes on to explain, she added that “what [the Obama administration is] doing is guaranteeing people, you know, these Catholic outfits and others, can’t serve the populations that they were called to serve.” That, of course, is true. Her commentary is bracing, though, on a couple of levels.
First, there is the sheer unreality of it. As someone of Ms. Henneberger’s sophistication must know, the Founders cannot have been wrong to guarantee free exercise of religion. Had they failed to do so, there would have been no nation to found. Free exercise was a deal-breaker for Americans, and the adoption of the Bill of Rights (in which free-exercise was among the core of individual liberties that had to be specified) was a deal breaker for skeptics in several states who believed the Constitution transferred too much power to the federal government.
Second is the tortuous progressive position on the Constitution. It so happens that Ms. Henneberger and I are in agreement on the HHS diktat. But what if the issue were, say, the “right” to abortion, or the suppression of political speech under the guise of campaign finance “reform”? I don’t want to target Ms. Henneberger unfairly here because I haven’t taken the time to research her positions on those matters. But of progressives generally, it can be confidently said that it would not matter what the founders had or had not guaranteed. In the spirit of Woodrow Wilson or Ruth Bader Ginsburg, they would argue that a modern country cannot be shackled by parchment frozen in the Eighteenth Century — better that you consult the constitution of South Africa.
Just so we understand the game, then, if something the Left still likes is enumerated in the Constitution (e.g., recess appointments — at least when a Democrat is in the White House), the Constitution is inviolable and its original intent must be enforced. If something the Left finds repugnant, or at least inconvenient, is enumerated in the Constitution (e.g., freedom of religion, freedom of speech, right to keep and bear arms), the Constitution is a living, breathing, organic Houdini.
So now can we expect to read in WaPo that protests against the Ground Zero Mosque are fair game?
P.S. You forgot that in addition to (D) recess appointments, one of the few other worthwhile things the founding fathers wrote into the Constitution was the right to an abortion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseApparently the founding fathers wrote in a few things in invisible ink.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIncluding the right of the federal government to decide what a marriage is.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHenneberger says she was being facetious. Check her twitter feed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo thanks. She made her point clear.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTwo things are interesting about this. Andy's point about this "left-leaning" writer saying this, most unnatural of phrases is surprising. Also interesting is that this self-described liberal feels that this is a good way to convince liberals that she has a legitimate point as a liberal in opposition. As if it's a way of saying, of course she considered the possibility that the Constitution is wrong. That's always a good way of building street cred with these people.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs McCarthy really so humorless? She was being sarcastic. “Maybe the founders were wrong to guarantee free exercise of religion [see how ridiculous that sounds? That's the absurd position of my opponents, and when you say it out loud, it sounds even more outrageous], but that is what they did [thank goodness] and I don’t think we have to choose here [unlike the liberals, who want to take away fundamental liberties].” The only thing that's bracing is that someone would take her sarcasm literally.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou can always count on lefties to move the goalposts.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo moral scruples or conscience. They are a repugnant bunch without ethics or
standards. Phony, hypocritical idealist without ideals.
Things must be so much easier when one has no moral compass.
Progressives are much less reticent in expressing their impatience with those pesky old frameworks of self-government, individual liberty, and rule of law.
It's too bad WaPo and so many other MSM image-makers don't venture outside their echo chamber. There's a very convincing case to be heard that our constitutional system of limited government is not only binding as law but also a pretty good framework in itself -- if we'd enforce it
Of course, we have at least one SCOTUS justice who openly disagrees. And at least three others who disagree privately. They too should step out of their echo chamber and expand their minds.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseProgressives have long expressed their dismay with the Second Amendment; it was only a matter of time before their previously-beloved First Amendment fell out of favor, and the others will not be far behind. The problem, quite simply, is that their goal is the realization of the mythical progressive utopian state, which has effectively no connection with the founding principles of the Constitution; as such, the Constitution has increasingly come to be seen by them as an obstacle.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is just one more example of the left's fractured logic. Liberals love the Establishment Clause and worship the "Wall of Separation," which isn't even in the Constitution, but hate Free Exercise. Gee, South Africa must not have that problem.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't understand why Justice Ginsburg recommends the South African constitution over the US constitution because South Africa has an independent judiciary. The US has an independent judiciary too. Am I missing something?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMost liberals are still PO'd that the constitution doesn't provide them with a right to have govt give them everything they want for free.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWitness Ginsburgs recent attacks on the Constitution.
"Just so we understand the game, then, if something the Left still likes is enumerated in the Constitution (e.g., recess appointments — at least when a Democrat is in the White House), the Constitution is inviolable and its original intent must be enforced. If something the Left finds repugnant, or at least inconvenient, is enumerated in the Constitution (e.g., freedom of religion, freedom of speech, right to keep and bear arms), the Constitution is a living, breathing, organic Houdini."
Yup that sums it up. The Left has no respect for the Constitution. They only follow it insofar as it helps their agenda. They'd be happier if they could just get rid of it all together. They've been trying to do that for 100 years.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse