Dumb, Dumber, Whoopi (updated)

Randall Hoven
Watching The View discuss politics is like watching the Mad Hatter's tea party.  Watching John McCain talk about the Constitution is like watching a toddler play with an electric knife.  Now you can watch it all together.  Video is available via HotAir here.  Transcript is available via Newsbusters here.

Where does one start?  First, notice this exchange:

SENATOR JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ): I think what we would be doing is appointing or nominating justices to the United States Supreme Court and other courts who strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States. We would not impose a litmus test on any issue because that's not fair to the American people. But they would have to have a clear record of strict interpretation.

BARBARA WALTERS: That's kind of the other way of saying people who would want to overturn Roe v. Wade.

So Barbara is admitting that a strict interpretation of the Constitution would mean Roe v Wade should be overturned.  That's big news, isn't it?  It means the "pro-choice" crowd knows and always knew that Roe v Wade had nothing to do with the Constitution.  The "right" to an abortion was simply made up, and they know it.

While McCain did use the word "interpret" more than once, he also said,

My interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is that the United States Supreme Court enforces the Constitution of the United States and does not legislate nor invent areas that are responsibilities, according to the Constitution, of the legislative branch.  [My emphasis.]

That was not the first time McCain said the Supreme Court should enforce the law.  He said it twice in his speech at the Conservative Political Action Committee when describing his views of the Court.  Even with 26 years in Congress, it seems the Senator should have Civics 101 down a little better by now:  The Legislative branch makes laws; the Executive branch enforces them; and the Judicial branch interprets them.

But the interchange became the Mad Hatter's Tea Party when Whoopi stated that a strict interpretation of the Constitution would bring back slavery, and all Senator McCain could say in response was "excellent point" and "thank you."

GOLDBERG: Can you just, and I don't want to misinterpret what you're saying. Did you say you wanted strict Constitutionalists? Because that, that-

McCAIN: No, I want people who interpret the Constitution of the United States the way our founding fathers envision-

GOLDBERG: Does that-

McCAIN: -for them to do.

GOLDBERG: Should I be worried about being a slave, about being returned to slavery because certain things happened in the Constitution that you had to change.

McCAIN: I, I understand your point.

GOLDBERG: Okay, okay.

McCAIN: I understand that point and I, I, [applause] thank you. That's an excellent point.

GOLDBERG: Thank you sir.

McCAIN: And I thank you.

A much simpler response would have been "The 13th Amendment takes care of that for you, Whoopi.  In fact, only by allowing the Constitution to be interpreted less than strictly could slavery be brought back."

Yes, Whoopi has it exactly backwards.  If the Constitution means only what five Justices say it means, then anything goes, including slavery.  It would mean we would not be a nation under the rule of law, but of men.  In fact, just five men.  (Or four men and one woman, with the current Court.)

Amendments are part of the Constitution.  And the 13th Amendment required about 620,000 Americans to die to get it in the Constitution.  That's one reason why we take that document seriously: a lot of people died to give it to us.  Amendments also require a lot of votes, a super-majority of both Congress and the states, to become enacted.

If Whoopi trusts five robed appointees over our written Constitution as properly amended, maybe she should live in a country governed more along those lines.  I would suggest Zimbabwe.

Update -- Jack Kemp (not the politician) writes:

Randall Hoven brings up the point that a liberal judge could ignore the 13th Amendment and go with their own interpretation. I would add that any reference to "world court opinon," as Justice Kennedy has mentioned (or Kerry's "global test), could result in using the interpretations of Saudi Arabian courts, a country that allows and has (black) slaves.
Be careful what you wish for, Whoopi.
Watching The View discuss politics is like watching the Mad Hatter's tea party.  Watching John McCain talk about the Constitution is like watching a toddler play with an electric knife.  Now you can watch it all together.  Video is available via HotAir here.  Transcript is available via Newsbusters here.

Where does one start?  First, notice this exchange:

SENATOR JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ): I think what we would be doing is appointing or nominating justices to the United States Supreme Court and other courts who strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States. We would not impose a litmus test on any issue because that's not fair to the American people. But they would have to have a clear record of strict interpretation.

BARBARA WALTERS: That's kind of the other way of saying people who would want to overturn Roe v. Wade.

So Barbara is admitting that a strict interpretation of the Constitution would mean Roe v Wade should be overturned.  That's big news, isn't it?  It means the "pro-choice" crowd knows and always knew that Roe v Wade had nothing to do with the Constitution.  The "right" to an abortion was simply made up, and they know it.

While McCain did use the word "interpret" more than once, he also said,

My interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is that the United States Supreme Court enforces the Constitution of the United States and does not legislate nor invent areas that are responsibilities, according to the Constitution, of the legislative branch.  [My emphasis.]

That was not the first time McCain said the Supreme Court should enforce the law.  He said it twice in his speech at the Conservative Political Action Committee when describing his views of the Court.  Even with 26 years in Congress, it seems the Senator should have Civics 101 down a little better by now:  The Legislative branch makes laws; the Executive branch enforces them; and the Judicial branch interprets them.

But the interchange became the Mad Hatter's Tea Party when Whoopi stated that a strict interpretation of the Constitution would bring back slavery, and all Senator McCain could say in response was "excellent point" and "thank you."

GOLDBERG: Can you just, and I don't want to misinterpret what you're saying. Did you say you wanted strict Constitutionalists? Because that, that-

McCAIN: No, I want people who interpret the Constitution of the United States the way our founding fathers envision-

GOLDBERG: Does that-

McCAIN: -for them to do.

GOLDBERG: Should I be worried about being a slave, about being returned to slavery because certain things happened in the Constitution that you had to change.

McCAIN: I, I understand your point.

GOLDBERG: Okay, okay.

McCAIN: I understand that point and I, I, [applause] thank you. That's an excellent point.

GOLDBERG: Thank you sir.

McCAIN: And I thank you.

A much simpler response would have been "The 13th Amendment takes care of that for you, Whoopi.  In fact, only by allowing the Constitution to be interpreted less than strictly could slavery be brought back."

Yes, Whoopi has it exactly backwards.  If the Constitution means only what five Justices say it means, then anything goes, including slavery.  It would mean we would not be a nation under the rule of law, but of men.  In fact, just five men.  (Or four men and one woman, with the current Court.)

Amendments are part of the Constitution.  And the 13th Amendment required about 620,000 Americans to die to get it in the Constitution.  That's one reason why we take that document seriously: a lot of people died to give it to us.  Amendments also require a lot of votes, a super-majority of both Congress and the states, to become enacted.

If Whoopi trusts five robed appointees over our written Constitution as properly amended, maybe she should live in a country governed more along those lines.  I would suggest Zimbabwe.

Update -- Jack Kemp (not the politician) writes:

Randall Hoven brings up the point that a liberal judge could ignore the 13th Amendment and go with their own interpretation. I would add that any reference to "world court opinon," as Justice Kennedy has mentioned (or Kerry's "global test), could result in using the interpretations of Saudi Arabian courts, a country that allows and has (black) slaves.
Be careful what you wish for, Whoopi.