When the republicans announced they were going to read the Constitution, I figured it was just another gimmick for the base. But the more I think about it, the more I realized this would be just what the republicans need to clarify their own minor Constitutional issues.
For example, George Bush took this country to two separate wars without a declaration, as specified in Article 1, Section 8.
Or the fact that Bush engaged in warrantless wiretapping in direct violation of the 4th amendment.
Then during the reelection campaign, Bush set up "free speech zones" in violation of the 1st amendments right of assembly. Further, there were a number of instances where protesters were arrested and later released without any evidence whatsoever.
Then we get to Dick Cheney, who proclaimed himself part of a previously unknown fourth branch of government to get around releasing information:
In the past, when he has been asked to comply with various congressional requests and orders, Cheney has claimed executive privilege because he's the Vice President. But last week, he claimed he wasn't a member the executive branch of the government, but was a member of the legislative branch. That was because he's the president of the Senate, and therefore he felt he wasn't subject to the presidential order giving the National Archives' Information Security Oversight Office the right to make sure that Cheney and his office have demonstrated proper security safeguards. By the end of the week, he was back claiming that he was actually the vice president, and therefore could claim executive privilege once again as he rejected demands from Congress about information regarding the firing of U.S. attorneys. How does he keep track of which job he's going to claim he has each day? Does he put on a different tie?
And who could forget Alberto Gonzales stating on the floor of the Senate that Habeas corpus does not apply to every American despite its inclusion stating:
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
That's pretty straight forward.
Then there is this from some of the more rightwing members of the Supreme Court:
Herrera v. Collins
Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s majority opinion held that a claim of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence did not state a ground for federal habeas relief. Herrera had claimed that, because the new evidence demonstrated innocence, his execution would violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment which applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Rehnquist’s opinion noted that "[f]ew rulings would be more disruptive of our federal system than to provide for federal habeas review of freestanding claims of actual innocence."
Rehnquist’s opinion, although not explicitly holding that the Eighth Amendment does not prohibit executing an innocent person, emphasized that Herrera was not raising a constitutional violation. In discussing what relief Herrera would be entitled to were he to succeed on his claim of "actual innocence," Rehnquist wrote, "Were petitioner to satisfy the dissent's ‘probable innocence’ standard...the District Court would presumably be required to grant a conditional order of relief, which would in effect require the State to retry petitioner 10 years after his first trial, not because of any constitutional violation which had occurred at the first trial, but simply because of a belief that in light of petitioner's new-found evidence a jury might find him not guilty at a second trial."
Rehnquist’s opinion also held that Texas courts’ refusal to even consider Herrera’s newly discovered evidence did not violate due process and suggested that Herrera file a clemency petition with the Texas Board of Pardon and Paroles.
Now I'm pretty sure Rehnquist didn't want innocent people executed (only pretty sure, though), but this is utterly ridiculous. Executing an innocent person is completely opposed to the prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment, and it does apply to the states.
Well, at least there was the always merciful Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles.
And of course this list could go on and on, from birth right citizenship to the income tax to extraordinary rendition and torture, republicans seem to have a very big problem with what's actually in the Constitution.
So perhaps they will learn how wrong they've been, and mend their ways. Or, more likely that is just wishful thinking, and what will really happen is this: If they don't want it done, they'll say that it's not in the Constitution and can't be done. If they do want it done, they'll say the Constitution doesn't prevent it and will promptly adopt it. And if it is somewhere in the middle, they'll say it all depends on interpretation, and since they are experts on the original founders, their judgment is the only way to proceed.