A Postmodern Approach to the Constitution

Apparently, it means whatever a person may say it means. This, at the Washington Times, as linked from Drudge, says

The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional.

So the President has ruled that an act of Congress is unconstitutional. Does that sound a little strange to anyone? Anyone?

I don’t know about the President’s experience, but when I was in grade school, my teachers taught me that it’s the Court’s job to decide whether an act of Congress is constitutional. If the Executive Branch thinks something is unconstitutional, shouldn’t it follow the same procedure as anyone else? What if I decide that it’s unconstitutional for me to pay the federal income tax? I’m pretty sure that the IRS would come down on me sooner or later regardless of my opinion. But if the Supreme Court decided the same thing, there would be dancing in the streets for days. Literally. In the streets. (Of course, then we’d have to get busy and reconstruct our economy, since the federal government would have to default on its unconscionably, ridiculously, and irresponsibly enormous debt, and all international trade with the US would cease.)

This is just another volley in the corruption-of-our-culture war, but I find it especially disturbing, because of the apparently callous disregard of the Constitution. Hey, here’s an idea. Maybe we should all read it, especially those in elected office. I dare you.

2 thoughts on “A Postmodern Approach to the Constitution

  1. suggest you do an in-depth study of the concept of judicial review. start with Marbury v. Madison and work forward to the present. There are many valuable resources on this subject on the Web.

  2. The Executive Branch (President) actually has the authority to declare a bill as unconstitutional by power of the veto.

Leave a Reply